Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[moste]

Quote:. I would assume if both items were missing, the poker hit her first, then, realizing it wasn't strong enough to do a "thorough" job, the iron bar was used to absolutely obliterate her skull.

I don't believe either of these items were used . The cleaner lady picked out in court what she claimed to be , an iron bar as close as dammit to the one in the parlour hearth.It was specified as 15 inches long and 1/2 an inch thick, that's thinner than the average adult males pinky! ( little finger to us Limeys) I have never heard of an iron bar being kept close by to a GAS FIRE, for any purpose ,(particularly not for cleaning) perhaps a plumber could help us here. I think the missing items are further examples of 'red herring country' . The effort involved to obliterate a human skull with a metal bar 1/2 inch thick would be immense , be like cutting your front lawn with a pair of scissors , LoL . Compare the description of the bar with Dr. McCall's suggested description of the weapon used. I'm going with a 2 1/2 pound ball pein hammer , and since there is some ambiguity as to the number of blows struck , I would suggest 4 or 5 max. (Understandable ambiguity I might add, since the blows rained down at roughly the same spot, how can anyone be certain )
On another subject, I do think it futile to try and second guess Wallace's demeanour by comparing him with ourselves. I 'm of the opinion he was a completely different animal from your average 'Joe Blow ' in this day and age.I.E . him chatting freely with a neighbour about chess club visits , versus us possibly mentioning popping over to the gym, we're talking Victorian era , Victorian standards here ,and then some, especially I would add where Wallace was concerned.

[moste]

On the bar thing again,even if Julia was struck very hard with a bar of these dimensions , it's unlikely she would have hit the ground . Much more likely is that she would have raised her arms to protect from further blows , while screaming blue murder at the top of her lungs.
On the Mac subject , I'm on board with Herlocks suggestion that it was used as a shield , in fact I would go even further and suggest it would be quite possible once the victim is still, to kneel or crouch next to her and deliver numerous blows while jerking the garment up above his face level, just a split second before each impact, thus avoiding any blood contamination at all. For a guilty Wallace , this would go hand in hand with a ' well planned exercise' .

[WallaceWackedHer]

I think you could easily do a little old lady in with an iron bar of even pretty poor dimensions, ESPECIALLY if it's solid and not hollow. It was described as about a foot long and the width of a candlestick. But indeed my mind had for some reason envisioned this giant slab or iron even after reading that. The poker was 9 inches.

Don't see the point in them as red herrings if Wallace did it. How does it help him in any way? He didn't even tell police they were missing, just pointed out that his kinky bondage whip had been gone for a year.

I don't think he could shield his face in the way you suggest. But again it's not that impotant as long as he takes his glasses off. Wiping blood clean from your face is simple with a rag. As long as it doesn't drip down onto your clothing underneath you're cool.

It does make me consider an interesting point though, the whole "her mackintosh... And my mackintosh" thing. Perhaps if someone else went in to do the deed, they were meant to take one of JULIA'S jackets and use it to shield themselves, which would imply to police she had been wearing it to fend off the cold.

[moste]

Exact replica #19 and 29 except for dead woman. Was the cupboard door ripped off? Just wondering.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Exact replica #19 and 29 except for dead woman. Was the cupboard door ripped off? Just wondering.

Not sure, I wouldn't think so. But what we do have is:

1) No forced entry.

2) Only the "cash container" stolen from.

3) The container REPLACED in its original position (very important).

4) Pillows and sheets randomly thrown around upstairs in the bedroom.

That crime was only a month earlier, just before Christmas... For it to be sheer coincidence that the scenes are basically the exact same is a bit of a stretch. And I don't think anyone else on the street would be unaware of the details of what had happened. Especially if Wallace found out who did it and blackmailed them to commit murder.

But I think anyone could have known the details.

In the case of a murder, I think the scene was CLEARLY staged to make police believe it was the same perpetrator who had burgled 19 Wolverton Street. This is an important point, definitely. Or truly the same perpetrator. But with the latter (the idea of it being an actual burglary) I have a lot of issue with Julia being in the parlor.

That's why I urge innocent Wallace believers to explain why ELSE Julia may be in the parlor if not entertaining an admitted guest, setting up the room for music, or just setting it up on the requets of her husband. With Julia dead in the parlor, and total silence, I think it is impossible that someone entered as a guest, "sneak thieved" from the box, and got caught.

Sneak thief for me can only even be POSSIBLE if there are two people in the home. The version Antony presents with the singular intruder is practically impossible, probably the closest to impossible of any theory. The lack of noise could be explained if it was the Johnstons (the cupboard being pulled off unheard). But actually that said, I tend to believe actual screams or any serious commotion including crashing cupboard doors would be heard by the residents at 27 Wolverton Street, and probably even further down the street than that lol. The neighbor I BELIEVE to be the resident of #27 said she had a dog who went bezerk at any unusual noise.

Keep in mind though we only have Wallace's word on when that cupboard door was removed.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I do wonder how the person got out of the home without leaving fingerprints OR blood marks on door handles or any other items we know were touched.

If the intruder was initially wearing gloves and attacked her, we can most certainly expect they would get blood upon them, which may then transfer onto other touched objects like the door handle when making his or her escape.

If the intruder was NOT wearing gloves initially, and put them on to cover the blood on his hands, then why are there no fingerprints in the home of anyone other than Wallace, the Johnstons, and the investigators?

Why would someome go to any length to ensure they do not leave blood marks on handles etc.

I suppose it's possible the palm side of the glove would be left clean.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do wonder how the person got out of the home without leaving fingerprints OR blood marks on door handles or any other items we know were touched.

If the intruder was initially wearing gloves and attacked her, we can most certainly expect they would get blood upon them, which may then transfer onto other touched objects like the door handle when making his or her escape.

If the intruder was NOT wearing gloves initially, and put them on to cover the blood on his hands, then why are there no fingerprints in the home of anyone other than Wallace, the Johnstons, and the investigators?

Why would someome go to any length to ensure they do not leave blood marks on handles etc.

I suppose it's possible the palm side of the glove would be left clean.

Good points. It certainly suggests precaution. At the risk of sounding like a broken record only Wallace would have taken such care. A burglar/sneak-thief would undoubtedly have worn gloves which would have very likely have had blood on them. It’s unthinkable that they would have been so stupid as to take off his gloves to leave prints.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Good points. It certainly suggests precaution. At the risk of sounding like a broken record only Wallace would have taken such care. A burglar/sneak-thief would undoubtedly have worn gloves which would have very likely have had blood on them. It’s unthinkable that they would have been so stupid as to take off his gloves to leave prints.

I think it's very likely the killer wore gloves when he attacked Julia, both a burglar and killer would have reason to do so.

I think the killer DID actually wack Julia then remove gloves - most probably. Reason being, that if he had gloves on and kept them on, I do tend to think that blood would be on the handles. Instead the handles are clean, suggesting that either hands were wiped clean with a rag or something, or gloves were removed... Or handles were wiped before police arrived.

That said, I DON'T think Wallace (or anyone else for that matter) had any reason to not want blood upon the handles, if he had gloves on. It is only explained that the perpetrator removed them so as to not walk out of the home with blood-soaked gloves on. Like, their purpose was just for protection like the mackintosh was purported to have been used for... I think a burglar would have fled the home still wearing the gloves, and only taken them off once outside the property, to prevent fingerprints at the scene... Yes he may have pushed on door handles with his elbows etc, but WHY, what purpose could it POSSIBLY serve a burglar to want to keep handles spotless if he had gloves on?

In the home, the only fingerprints found belonged to the investigators, Wallace, and the Johnstons. This can implicate either Wallace himself or the Johnstons, or both Wallace and the Johnstons in a conspiracy. THAT SAID, in the newspaper reports of the time, it's stated that many fingerprints were "smeared" or "blurred" and thus of no use... It's also worth noting that contemporary papers of that time explain that due to the police strike, some members of the force took to housebreaking, and would then "investigate their own crimes", which, of course, would never be solved. So as an extreeeeeeme fringe outlier possibility it could also implicate one of the investigators who entered the home.

It raises an interesting proposition though in an innocent Wallace scenario: Did the Johnstons meet Wallace outside on purpose, to gain entry into his home, so as to provide an explanation for their fingerprints being at the scene? As in, the back door really WAS locked when Wallace got home. Johnston unlocked it when Wallace went round to the front, then as he came back they're "coincidentally" just leaving their house to go visit Phyllis. At 9 PM. With Mr. Johnston having a job requiring him to wake at 4 AM.

---

By the way I only just learned, that Wallace's dying words to Allen (one of his defence team) was something like, "well we won sonny, didn't we?" Looool. I can't decide if that's peculiar or not. Like if it's a "we got away with it" comment or a "we rightly won my freedom" comment. Reminds me of the end of the Primal Fear movie where the main character admits he was pretending to have multiple personality disorder all along to get found innocent by reason of insanity, then brags to psychiatrist about how he murdered everyone. Lol.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I have asked Rod to come back, hopefully he or Antony will come back (you can't have a trial with a prosecution and no defence!).

Anyway I found an interesting quote from him earlier in the thread:

In my view, the evidence does not support the theory that Julia was attacked while in the process of lighting the fire. The gas tap was to the right of the fire, but no bloodstains were found in that corner of the room. All the bloodspatter was to the left of the fire, on the violin case, and up the walls there. Professor MacFall thought she had been sitting on the chair to the left of the fire when attacked. It is generally agreed the investigators could have done a better job, although I'm not sure how advanced spatter analysis was in 1931.

Is this accurate? I also tended to believe she had been sitting in the chair on the left when attacked.

Of course, for some reason her legs were then moved to the opposite side. Why this might be, I do not know.

MacFall also said she may have been getting up from the process of lighting the fire.

---

I think at the moment I have a few ideas floating around in my head aside from solo Wallace...

Wallace making Parry ring using a false pretext (e.g. saying he was going to pull off a robbery or insurance scam) and then killing Julia himself. He may have assumed he was in the clear, knowing Beattie would say it wasn't his voice, and knowing Parry had no alibi for the call.

Parry and the Johnstons being involved in one of the many housebreaking syndicates, and Parry making the call and the Johnstons then attempting to thieve the home. We may say one of the two distracted Julia in the parlor while another came in the back with the dupe key, then the partially-broken cupboard door snapped off, causing a loud sound, at which point the person in the parlor hit Julia before she could investigate.

Wallace having Parry ring on false pretenses, then having the Johnstons (via blackmail of knowing John was housebreaking) play some role. Possibly as the killers, or even a cleanup or disposal crew? And to come out of their home to "coincidentally" discover him and corroborate the story of him finding Julia dead.

Johnstons alone, having small talk knowledge from Wallace that he was expecting to attend chess club that monday night. Old-man-voice Johnston making the call from the booth, then possibly kidnapping the cat as a way to distract Julia or whatever the following day I do not know...

---

Most of these musings hinge on the suspicious nature of Parry's alibi for the night of the call. But due to his parents attempting to smuggle him out of the country, it's possible the Brine alibi is false and coerced, so he may have in fact been available on the murder night. But I certainly don't think he would kill Julia.

I am almost certain Parkes embellished the facts if Parry had dropped by the garage (way too unnatural for someone to randomly volunteer where they disposed the weapon etc.)

And another thought occurred to me:

For some reason Wallace was not recalled as having been on that first tram. Nor on the way home, despite his very distinctive and memorable appearance. No fare collectors or conductors on these trams recognized him?

Shouldn't the first tram be the most important place to first make your presence known?

I suspect perhaps he had an unnatural way to beat the clock - for example he did NOT take the tram there or home, he had a ride, which would greatly extend the window of time he had, both to commit an act and then also to possibly do a bit of spring cleaning and staging on the way back.

If Parry's alibi is false I suspect a possibility that Parry had given him a ride. And if Parkes testimony has any grain of truth (I doubt Parry randomly blurted out he'd hang for the bloodied glove, instead of making an excuse, but perhaps there was such a glove), the items for disposal may have been dumped upon him. And he'd be all like "WTF?!?!?!" But at that point he's too heavily involved so has to do as he's told... One issue with this is the lack of car sounds heard that night.

---

New newapaper findings:

Crewe testified in court that he had no idea where Menlove Gardens was. I don't know if this is common knowledge.

There was also a claim by the prosecution that Crewe had been laid up sick for some time and Wallace had to fill in going to visit him 2 or 3 times a week. This was vehemently denied by Crewe.

Mr Bishop appeared to be prejudicing opinion against Wallace when at the initial hearing where the crown is simply meant to state the facts as they happened, with no suggestion. Allen called this out, and in response Mr Bishop smiled evilly (srs) and said he was simply trying to give the facts.

Also I think this is certainly known, but in the papers it is reported that club members established it would be off of Menlove Avenue (the gardens would be). Beattie had told Wallace he should most definitely look it up in advance (i.e. check a directory) because it's a "bad place to be knocking about at night". Wallace swiftly shut down the idea of checking a directory, exclaiming that he belonged to Liverpool and could certainly find it himself.

[moste]

It certainly wouldn't/isn't an unsafe place to be knocking at night, I don't know where that came from.

[WallaceWackedHer]

It certainly wouldn't/isn't an unsafe place to be knocking at night, I don't know where that came from.

It was Beattie's own words, he told Wallace he should consult a directory because the area is unsafe to be knocking around in and he might be there all night. Wallace shut down his suggestion saying he could inquire.

I believe Beattie's words may have had merit at the time. A home in Menlove Gardens West had been burgled on December the 21st 1930, and on January 22nd 1931 there was a report of a home on Menlove Avenue being burgled. So it does sound like it may have been an area with some issues.

Also I made a mistake. Crewe said he didn't know if there was or was not a MGE, not that he didn't know there was a Menlove Gardens:

To your knowledge, was Mr. Wallace familiar with this district? - No.

Was it ever in his Prudential round? The Menlove Avenue district? - No.

Did you ever know before the case whether or not there was a Menlove Gardens East? - No.

Allen continues: "Here is a man who lives within 1,500 feet and he did not know whether there was a Menlove Gardens East."

By the way, in an innocent Wallace scenario there is the question: "How did they know he was going to his appointment with Qualtrough?" - for example, when they saw him leave how did they know that's where he was going, and not just going to the local newsagents for a pack of cigs? Did they follow him to the tram? Or just see him leave and assume that's probably where he was headed? Perhaps the person knocked and asked Julia if Wallace was home and where he had gone?

But whatever the case, we know one person who knew for certain that Wallace was going to Calderstones: Amy Wallace... We also have a report of a man escaping from near Wolverton at some time around 7, via cab, to Sefton Park where Amy lived (Ullet Road).

We of course only have her word that Julia had told her that Wallace was heading to Calderstones that night (it does help to support the appearance of Wallace's innocence). We must also keep in mind that the Johnstons claimed they could always hear Amy through the walls as she was so loud - but it certainly would have been a huge stroke of luck for them to get that confirmation.

---

I would also add that, it is quite strange, that Wallace having NO IDEA where Menlove Gardens East is (evidently he didn't even know it was off Menlove Avenue, as he had to inquire before he even got to Menlove Avenue as to what trams to take - despite apparently correctly identifying to Julia that he was headed to Calderstones, a route he was familiar with), turned up with only 10 minutes to spare. Could this be because Alan Close was unexpectedly late, meaning Wallace had to leave later than anticipated?

It does not make sense for ANYONE with any sense of punctuality to go on a wild goose chase yet cut the timing so fine. What if MGE had been another 10 minute tram ride away? Was 10 minutes really enough time to leave yourself to search for an address you have NO clue as to the location of?

I would suggest in any case as I mentioned previously, that he possibly had a ride to Smithdown Lane and on the way back, as no fare collectors or conductors on those trams recollected seeing the very distinctive Wallace aboard their tram. This would allow him to "beat the clock" much easier, if true.

[moste]

Beattie aside, Menlove Gardens area was/is a very pleasant, leafy suberb of a decent area of Liverpool . Crime of the burglary sort was pretty rife throughout the major city's of England ,middle of a deep depression, unemployment at all time highs, and Liverpools police force in a hell of a mess , strike action abounding, corruption at every turn.

On the Mr. Crewe living apparently in a fog. Unbelievable that he would not know the street formation as close as he was to the triangle. He lived there 8 years didn't he!

[moste]

Double checked ,Joe Crewe 'Lived on Green Lane 3 1/2 years.'

[WallaceWackedHer]

Double checked ,Joe Crewe 'Lived on Green Lane 3 1/2 years.'

Well IIRC the gardens were a relatively new construction. I can fact check this when on my laptop.

The blood on the door handles thing is causing me some bother. I simply cannot find an explanation for it.

Who would have an incentive to ensure thar? Or did it happen by accident rather than by design (as in did the killer just remove his gloves after killing Julia and not specifically think about keeping handles clean?)... If you hit someone really hard while gripping a bar, would your palms stay clean of the blood that came off of her? I'd tend to think there'd be transfer onto anything you gripped such as handles.

A burglar in a panic I think would have left such marks.

But if Wallace had killed her himself how did his clothes pass the benzidine test? (Or did he change clothes after killing her?) DID he have enough time? DID he stage things in advance. Where did the gloves and hat he would've probably had to wear for protection go? Did the Johnstons take all of that stuff? Did Parry lie about his alibi with Brine and provide a car ride for Wallace to Smithdown and back after, being forced to take the weaponry since he has been tricked into such heavy involvement and now has no choice but to go along with it?

[WallaceWackedHer]

You know, if Wallace was behind it he made a HUGE mistake of having killed her in the parlor. It makes burglary so hard to reconcile, since parlor implies Julia admitted a visitor... But then the silence and lack of defensive wounds, and where she was likely at when attacked (on the chair) it indicates with VERY high probability that she was taken completely by surprise.

As in she didn't catch someone thieving.

So now you have to find a way to place Julia in that parlor NATURALLY, because if someone was invited in first, had there not been two people, it basically rules out the idea of a robbery. Unless the burglar went in there with the express intent of killing her first.

I noticed Wallace cried when hearing the diary entry about him and Julia enjoying the frosty park. I get the impression from that, and the constable who apparently saw him crying before the killing, that had she been murdered by him it was through necessity. Like she found out something she wasn't meant to know. Or Wallace found out she was having an affair. Something along those lines. I'm not so sure he just randomly became sick of her and did her in... Or was he just a really good actor able to turn on the waterworks when deemed fit?