Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Of course we can’t recreate the full murder but I don’t think it’s impossible or even unlikely that it was something like this - Wallace was standing at the mirror adjusting his tie - he calls for Julia to bring in his mackintosh - Julia brings in the mackintosh and stands next to William - He picks up the bar and strikes a blow - Julia drops the mackintosh but its too late to get her hands up as some form of protection - the mackintosh falls on the fire grate and Julia’s legs give way and she falls against the fire grate causing the singeing to her skirt - the coat catches light - Wallace pulls Julia away from the fire, picks up the mackintosh and pats out the smouldering- he then either puts on the coat or uses it as a shield and delivers the rest of the blows kneeling next to Julia’s body.

Case solved

Buttons can't prove it's his jacket lol. You have to accept he burned his hat and gloves entirely... That's if he wore the mackintosh.

I don't think anyone with any sense would wear it. It's so obviously smarter and more reliable to throw it over her head. That's GUARANTEED splatter protection, and solo Wallace would be able to use one of HER jackets or something that wouldn't incriminate him to a ridiculous degree. Also I read the mackintosh was a lot more burned than the skirt.

Those grid fireplaces are meant to protect from accidental firesetting like that. I suppose it's possible if she fell in headfirst with the mack over her head, then you wouldn't get staining on the fireplace/grid etc. But those grids are supposed to provide protection from that sort of thing.

Also your scenario just now means he wasn't protected from splatter on the initial blow. The bar behind the fireplace that was found had no stains upon it, and no rust was found in Julia's wounds. This is more consistent with there being some type of covering used, either on the bar or on Julia's head.

Only one wound sprayed blood? The rest did not? In that case, clearly there was something containing the blood from going up the walls etc. on subsequent strikes, causing it to pool instead.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Buttons can't prove it's his jacket lol. You have to accept he burned his hat and gloves entirely... That's if he wore the mackintosh.

No, but it might appear strange and suggestive to the police if they’d found the remains of a burnt coat. Why burn a coat and not just throw it out with the rubbish? I think attempting to burn incriminating evidence would have been far more risky unless he’d had time to stand next to the fire to make sure the destruction was complete, which he didn’t.

I don't think anyone with any sense would wear it. It's so obviously smarter and more reliable to throw it over her head. That's GUARANTEED splatter protection, and solo Wallace would be able to use one of HER jackets or something that wouldn't incriminate him to a ridiculous degree. Also I read the mackintosh was a lot more burned than the skirt.

I’m not against the idea of Wallace throwing it over her head, it’s been mentioned before, it’s another way for Wallace to have committed the crime. I’m not an expert in forensics but wouldn’t they have been able to tell if it had been used like that? Bone/brain fragments on the coat etc?

Those grid fireplaces are meant to protect from accidental firesetting like that. I suppose it's possible if she fell in headfirst with the mack over her head, then you wouldn't get staining on the fireplace/grid etc. But those grids are supposed to provide protection from that sort of thing.

I don’t know WWH but I don’t know that anyone has ever suggested that it would have been impossible due to the type of fireplace.

Also your scenario just now means he wasn't protected from splatter on the initial blow. The bar behind the fireplace that was found had no stains upon it, and no rust was found in Julia's wounds. This is more consistent with there being some type of covering used, either on the bar or on Julia's head.

He might just have been fortunate. Maybe there wasn’t much blood from the first blow? I wonder if the first blow might not have broken the skin? Maybe he caught Julia with a glancing blow with rendered her either fully or partially unconscious?

Only one wound sprayed blood? The rest did not? In that case, clearly there was something containing the blood from going up the walls etc. on subsequent strikes, causing it to pool instead.

[B] I didn’t say that only one wound sprayed blood WWH? Maybe I’ve said something that was a bit unclear? Apologies if so.

I still say that the mackintosh points very, very strongly at Wallace.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I still say that the mackintosh points very, very strongly at Wallace.

1) How can you throw it out in the rubbish? Lol. That's so much worse. How about the hat and gloves? Surely he was wearing those items, and they were incinerated?

2) And about the forensics I'm not really sure... The fact is, the containment is very weird for repeated heavy blows that produced such dramatic injuries. The "blood smothered room" to me looks almost like a showroom it's so neat and tidy. Literally WHERE are the splashes of blood 8 foot up the walls? I can't see ANY whatsoever?

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--xoskagUYus/ULPdRH-3ymI/AAAAAAAAbrE/bgQtDRLmNRE/s1600/ScreenHunter_42+Nov.+26+21.19.jpg

Literally where is it? I only see the pool on the ground. Apparently it was "all around the room, above the piano" etc. according to experts.

Apparently MacFall claims the killing blow was delivered to the front of Julia, above and in front of the ear. So this would likely be a sidewards blow right? Considering it's to the side of the head where the ear is? And the spray then should go away from the attacker if that's the case? Very, very risky to rely upon I would have thought. Although he did suggest that.

But then after this, despite all the heavy attacks to the skull, why is the room so clean, why was there no more spray of blood on subsequent strikes? Was it because she was hit the further times quite some time after death when the heart would no longer be pumping? Otherwise I wonder if it's possible to avoid spray on the followup strikes without a barrier of some sort... I wish he would have been questioned on the possibility of the jacket being thrown over the head prior to the attack.

3) You are correct:

And you found the burnt pieces (of the mackintosh) right in front of the fire ? - Yes, right across the front.

So it was indeed burned on that gas fire.

4) MacFall claimed the first and most severe injury was to the front of the head. He said the blood patterning on the mackintosh is consistent with someone who had been wearing it. He also said only the first wound spurted blood all around the room.

5) You didn't, but that was the suggestion raised by MacFall, that only the first strike caused blood to spurt all over.

---

I do not much like to rely on chance and coincidence though (e.g. the attacker was just super lucky and didn't get a single drop of blood on himself). These factors are usually present in cases, but in a premeditated attack, I would think it would be very foolish to wear the mack rather than throw it over Julia's head.

It would also of course be quite stupid to use your own jacket, and throwing it over her offers 100% guaranteed splatter protection. Like you say about Parry's alibi, could someone really be so stupid as to incriminate themselves like that? It's possible. Criminals can and do make mistakes... Although with such heavy premeditation usually obvious things are considered...

But if MacFall's opinion is believed, the assailant wore the mackintosh when the first blow was struck. In my opinion this makes it less likely he (Wallace) committed the act alone. I do not tend to believe the window of time is necessarily adequate to take steps required to ensure everything you are wearing is clean (or incinerated: e.g. gloves and hats) as well as your face and hair etc, in the time he apparently had to act. To me it doesn't seem long enough. I think the staging was probably done before the killing so that part has no bearing on the time window IMO. The crime scene blood containment though, is a bit weird.

if the mack had been thrown over her then certainly the attack could be carried out almost instantly, and him leave the home like, a minute later, but apparently if it was worn, he would have got blood upon him (or at least had to anticipate a lot WOULD get on him) and that makes the time window narrower in my view. Perhaps too narrow.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) How can you throw it out in the rubbish? Lol. That's so much worse. How about the hat and gloves? Surely he was wearing those items, and they were incinerated?

WWH, have you ever typed something and then when you read it back later you can’t recall typing it? I’m completely confused here and if I didn’t know better I’d have sworn that someone had hacked my account and edited my post.

I genuinely, for the life of me, can’t understand why I put ‘”and not just throw it out with the rubbish?’” I can’t even blame auto-correct. It makes no sense at all.

please ignore that moment of insanity.

[Herlock Sholmes]

2) And about the forensics I'm not really sure... The fact is, the containment is very weird for repeated heavy blows that produced such dramatic injuries. The "blood smothered room" to me looks almost like a showroom it's so neat and tidy. Literally WHERE are the splashes of blood 8 foot up the walls? I can't see ANY whatsoever?

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--xoskagUY....+26+21.19.jpg

Literally where is it? I only see the pool on the ground. Apparently it was "all around the room, above the piano" etc. according to experts

I know what you mean WWH but I think that it’s more to do with the photography not picking up fine spray at a distance. I’ve always wondered why the photographer didn’t take a snap or two of the blood spatter?

[Herlock Sholmes]

4) MacFall claimed the first and most severe injury was to the front of the head. He said the blood patterning on the mackintosh is consistent with someone who had been wearing it. He also said only the first wound spurted blood all around the room

Ive no books to hand so was he talking about Julia wearing it or William?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
I do not much like to rely on chance and coincidence though (e.g. the attacker was just super lucky and didn't get a single drop of blood on himself). These factors are usually present in cases, but in a premeditated attack, I would think it would be very foolish to wear the mack rather than throw it over Julia's head.

But if he’d thrown it over her head there would have been no blood spatter at all.

Im not suggesting that Wallace relied on luck. He might have expected to get blood on his face intending to wash up in the back kitchen sink and the police had found traces the defence could easily have said that the killer (not Wallace) didn’t want to leave the house with blood on his face. But in the end he was fortunate.

Then again, as I’ve suggested before, if Wallace had gotten blood on him might he not have used chemicals from his lab to clean the sink?

Actually, when I’ve pressed my point about Wallace avoiding the Parlour to go upstairs and people have asked why, I’ve suggested that it might have been because he’d used chemicals but when he got back inside he saw that he’d left the container in the kitchen so he needed to take it upstairs to his lab.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But if MacFall's opinion is believed, the assailant wore the mackintosh when the first blow was struck. In my opinion this makes it less likely he (Wallace) committed the act alone. I do not tend to believe the window of time is necessarily adequate to take steps required to ensure everything you are wearing is clean (or incinerated: e.g. gloves and hats) as well as your face and hair etc, in the time he apparently had to act. To me it doesn't seem long enough. I think the staging was probably done before the killing so that part has no bearing on the time window IMO. The crime scene blood containment though, is a bit weird.

Ah. Ignore post 2676.

I think that Wallace would have had ample time. I don’t think that anything needed incinerating or any massive clean up was required.

Cash box already emptied.
Cupboard door pulled off (Julia told it had come off and that he’d repair it tomorrow)
Door closes on Alan Close around 6.38.
Julia dead by 6.40 with the mackintosh pushed under her body.
Weapon in a bag or wrapped in paper 6.41
He leaves at 6.50 giving him time to for a cup of tea

[WallaceWackedHer]

But if he’d thrown it over her head there would have been no blood spatter at all.

Im not suggesting that Wallace relied on luck. He might have expected to get blood on his face intending to wash up in the back kitchen sink and the police had found traces the defence could easily have said that the killer (not Wallace) didn’t want to leave the house with blood on his face. But in the end he was fortunate.

Then again, as I’ve suggested before, if Wallace had gotten blood on him might he not have used chemicals from his lab to clean the sink?

Actually, when I’ve pressed my point about Wallace avoiding the Parlour to go upstairs and people have asked why, I’ve suggested that it might have been because he’d used chemicals but when he got back inside he saw that he’d left the container in the kitchen so he needed to take it upstairs to his lab.

I've actually always had that in the back of my mind, the knowledge that Wallace is a chemist with a laboratory room. If there was a way to beat a benzidine test he'd probably know how to mix the right chemicals up to do it... It's always in the back of my subconscious stirring around with potential uses. However I don't think the drains were even benzidine'd. According to Antony's book...

Also btw I wouldn't say that him wearing the mack rather than throwing it over her means he's innocent for how dumb that is... Even a cold and calculating man might make a little oversight... Same with the fire... It's like, suggestive... But killers are human and we can't expect perfection... He must have realized how bad using his own mack would look to investigators rofl. If he had so much time to spare I'd have concentrated hard on flaming that jacket beyond the point of being identifiable.

But that combined with the fact that I do think he'd be drenched... I can't see him having time... In my view the iron bar could well be the murder weapon. It is unstained - and no rust is found in Julia's wounds - so it's either NOT the weapon, or it was wrapped/Julia's head covered. They never did find the poker...

I think MacFall said the subsequent strikes also sent spray up the walls as well? It's hard to tell what he means. But definitely if that is true I feel he'd have a bit too much blood on him to be able to then go out on that trip etc... And even if he didn't get much on himself, he surely would have anticipated that he would, and should have planned for such an outcome. After 11 strikes he should have expected he'd be soaked...

It just seems so tight... 10 minutes after Julia is dead he leaves his house totally clean. A mack by itself is not adequate protection. Hair, facial hair, possibly trousers unless he knelt... It was suggested there were stains as though someone had wiped their shoe on the hearth rug? Not by MacFall but another forensic scientist. I wish I could ask MacFall about the possibility the blood up the walls was placed artificially by flicking the soaked jacket at the walls... Or if he thinks it may have been thrown over her head on any of the blows...

Think me, you, and the other poster are the only ones still discussing this case lol.

[WallaceWackedHer]

By the way, I should just point out that according to the forensics experts working the case, the blood pattern on the mackintosh implied the attacker had been wearing it. It is also pointed out that the attacker apparently removed the jacket leaving a distinctive blood stain on one of the sleeves (the right sleeve perhaps it was? I forget)... We also learn that the killer is apparently right handed - Gordon Parry is supposedly left handed.

If we follow the series of events proposed by the experts - we see that supposedly someone put on the mackintosh, battered Julia with an unknown weapon (wrapped if it was the iron bar), then removed it and put it under her body. The silence to me indicates she may have indeed been bending to the fireplace, as a frontal attack where she's sitting on that chair would give her just a little more chance to react than if she was hit from the blindside while getting up from lighting the fire. We also see spent matches under her body.

The state of the mack is important because according to forensics we can expect that the killer's hand was coated in blood and used that hand to remove the jacket (hence the sleeve stain), there is not any blood found on anything else in the home (the notes and toilet pan may have been placed by the investigators, it's proposed)...

So how did the killer go from having blood coated hands to then being so clean without using any drains? To my mind, as we've discussed, it suggests gloves which were then removed/put on, or that the mackintosh/hearth rug was used to wipe his hands upon, but it seems a bit silly to do that instead of just using water to get it all off. Alternatively, there was a second person who touched everything (such as door handles) so the killer did not have to leave any marks.

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.

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.

---

If the jacket had been thrown over Julia's head, then it becomes more likely that Wallace would EASILY have had time to commit the act. With 100% protection like that he doesn't need to dispose of anything, is guaranteed to be totally clean, and could probably kill Julia and get out of the home within 5 to 10 minutes tops.

But the forensic suggestion that it was worn changes things completely, and we now have to envision the image of a blood-soaked killer, with blood coated shoes, gloves, face, etc... There's no evidence that any rag was used... Total incineration should take care of that (and the gloves), but then I'm not sure if forensics back then were advanced enough to detect trace materials that have been completely burned to ash. They did detect the burned pieces of mackintosh near the fire.

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.

[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.

[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]

.
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]

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.

[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?