Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

    Honestly, anyone she'd have admitted into the home...

    I would like to know how reliable the forensic suggestion was, that the jacket was worn. That's a pretty important detail I think.

    Putting it around her shoulders is just WEIRD. Like okay she may have done that to answer the door and admit the person... But once she's done that, why would she CONTINUE wearing it like that? Because the parlor is cold? It's a bit of a peculiar item to wear as a scarf. If she was that cold wouldn't it have been better to put on one of her own jackets? I doubt a mack feels very comfortable to wear as a scarf lol.

    Was it ever confirmed that Wallace DID post a letter by the way? Because his route to the tram stop on the night of the chess club is very strange. He goes far out of his way, rather than taking the quickest route that goes down Pendennis etc.
    For a woman (or anyone for that matter) to put a coat around her shoulders doesnít mean wearing it a scarf. Itís basically this.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=coat...0hS6XsLv1_p8XM

    Its done for speed to keep warm for a short period rather than putting it on properly. Basically wearing it as a cloak. All that said, the problem for those that believe that this is what she did, is of course to explain how it came to be bunched up underneath her. I just donít see how this could have occurred by chance.

    The letter was never confirmed. An old question of course is why Wallace walked past two perfectly good stops and the ends of Richmond Park and Newcombe Street respectively. (In a previous post Iíd mistakenly said Pendennis Street until Antony reminded me that it was in fact Newcombe.)
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 03-12-2019, 06:44 PM.
    Regards

    Herlock






    "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      For a woman (or anyone for that matter) to put a coat around her shoulders doesnít mean wearing it a scarf. Itís basically this.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=coat...0hS6XsLv1_p8XM

      Its done for speed to keep warm for a short period rather than putting it on properly. Basically wearing it as a cloak. All that said, the problem for those that believe that this is what she did, is of course to explain how it came to be bunched up underneath her. I just donít see how this could have occurred by chance.

      The letter was never confirmed. An old question of course is why Wallace walked past two perfectly good stops and the ends of Richmond Park and Newcombe Street respectively. (In a previous post Iíd mistakenly said Pendennis Street until Antony reminded me that it was in fact Newcombe.)
      Ohhhh right that makes a lot more sense if that's what they meant. Still, it's odd she wouldn't pick one of her own? But I always envisioned they'd meant she had worn it in a scarf type fashion rather than like a cloak.

      It's hard to determine how it ended up in that position because the position of Julia isn't natural either. It appears her body was moved. So the exact events that led to the positioning of Julia and the jacket are hard to determine.

      But I suppose the theory they take is: Julia is wearing mack like a cloak as she lights the fire > Julia goes to stand up and is hit before she completes the action > Her body falls back into the fire, so the mack she has on her back makes contact with the flames and catches fire, and a small bit of her skirt too > Julia is yanked out of the fire by her hair and plonked down flat on her face (her legs are also chucked aside?).

      Do you believe the fire was accidental? And what do you think of the fallibility of the forensic suggestion that the mack had been worn and then taken off by a bloodied hand/glove?

      And yes his route on the chess club night does not make sense. I think the ONLY explanation is that he may have posted a letter? That should have been verified by police of course. It's a very odd route.

      Comment


      • Ohhhh right that makes a lot more sense if that's what they meant. Still, it's odd she wouldn't pick one of her own? But I always envisioned they'd meant she had worn it in a scarf type fashion rather than like a cloak.

        I couldn’t agree more WWH. I’ve had this debate before on both threads I think. It’s almost certain that Julia didn’t own a mackintosh. I can’t recall exactly where I read it, you may be able to track it down, but William said that he’d never seen her wearing one which would have been more than a little strange had their been a mackintosh Of Julia’s hanging on the hooks. It also adds a bit of mystery to the ‘her macintosh and my mackintosh’ comment don’t you think?

        It's hard to determine how it ended up in that position because the position of Julia isn't natural either. It appears her body was moved. So the exact events that led to the positioning of Julia and the jacket are hard to determine.

        But I suppose the theory they take is: Julia is wearing mack like a cloak as she lights the fire > Julia goes to stand up and is hit before she completes the action > Her body falls back into the fire, so the mack she has on her back makes contact with the flames and catches fire, and a small bit of her skirt too > Julia is yanked out of the fire by her hair and plonked down flat on her face (her legs are also chucked aside?).

        It’s impossible to exactly reconstruct events because even between the two of us we could probably come up with 20 ‘possibilities.’ I appreciate that I’m repeating myself (and not for the first time) but for me the questions that have to be answered (amongst others of course) are: why was the mackintosh in the Parlour in the first place as William had hung it up? / How did it end up all bunched up beneath Julia’s body? / Can anyone come up with a scenario where this occurred by chance? / If it wasn’t by chance then why wouldthe killer have done it? / And of any of the known or unknown suspects who would have reason to have done it?

        For me the answers are: Because William used it / It was done deliberately in the hope of smudging and smearing the blood spatter to disguise the fact that it had been used. / No / Already mentioned. / William.


        Do you believe the fire was accidental? And what do you think of the fallibility of the forensic suggestion that the mack had been worn and then taken off by a bloodied hand/glove?

        I think that the burning of the mackintosh and Julia’s skirt were done pretty much simultaneously and probably as a result of Julia falling against the fire after the first blow was struck.

        About the hand print - we have no way of knowing. One of the infuriating things about the case is the paucity of photographs. A possible hand print - the singed skirt - the mackintosh - blood spatter on the walls - Wallace’s lab - the locks - the bloodstained note. So much vital stuff was missed. Maybe it was because the camera’s were so cumbersome and time consuming in those days. Maybe they had one eye on the cost?




        And yes his route on the chess club night does not make sense. I think the ONLY explanation is that he may have posted a letter? That should have been verified by police of course. It's a very odd route.

        It is. Rod suggested it might have been because William just liked walking. I suggested that perhaps the stop near Belmont Road was a point where the fair got slightly cheaper so Wallace was just saving the pennies but no one knows if that was the case though.

        I know that you’ve recently read Gannon and I seem to remember that the two routes - left to Belmont or right to phone box were pretty much the same distance. But didn’t Gannon say that the quicker way would have been to have left by the front door and gone through the estate? I seem to remember him saying that there were more left/right turns though. As if that would deter anyone?
        Regards

        Herlock






        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          I know that you’ve recently read Gannon and I seem to remember that the two routes - left to Belmont or right to phone box were pretty much the same distance. But didn’t Gannon say that the quicker way would have been to have left by the front door and gone through the estate? I seem to remember him saying that there were more left/right turns though. As if that would deter anyone?
          The idea that he just liked walking is a bit ridiculous. He didn't "like walking" the following night when he took the correct shorter route via Pendennis.

          If both things were burned at the same time that's actually more consistent with her having it on her own body rather than vice versa.

          The "her mackintosh" comment is clearly unusual, but also done on purpose. Why he would do that I'm not sure... I think Gannon's idea makes some sense on that point, that Wallace EXPECTED it was going to be a different jacket, but it depends on the exact moment when he said the line (if it was before or after inspecting it closely)... Or he just wanted to make it seem like he was clueless.

          Whoever wore that mack though, I don't think it's adequate protection. It's gonna be like Patrick Bateman, face and hair soaked at least. He would not rely on luck for something that serious, so IMO he had a way to prevent that, or did not kill her himself.

          Comment


          • Whoever wore that mack though, I don't think it's adequate protection. It's gonna be like Patrick Bateman, face and hair soaked at least. He would not rely on luck for something that serious, so IMO he had a way to prevent that, or did not kill her himself.
            Youve pointed out that itís difficult even to see the blood spatter but we know that it was there. Itís still wasnt a slaughterhouse though. If he wore the mackintosh and then dealt the blows from a kneeling position only his face and hands are on show. His left hand would have been down at his side and therefore blood-free. His right hand would have been a moving target and so could have avoided blood. This left his face. The spatter was random. He might have gotten some on his face but he might not. Perhaps he got a few spots on his face which he wiped off with a handkerchief and checked his face in the mirror. He either dumps the handkerchief on his journey or burns it in the fire?
            Regards

            Herlock






            "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              Youve pointed out that itís difficult even to see the blood spatter but we know that it was there. Itís still wasnt a slaughterhouse though. If he wore the mackintosh and then dealt the blows from a kneeling position only his face and hands are on show. His left hand would have been down at his side and therefore blood-free. His right hand would have been a moving target and so could have avoided blood. This left his face. The spatter was random. He might have gotten some on his face but he might not. Perhaps he got a few spots on his face which he wiped off with a handkerchief and checked his face in the mirror. He either dumps the handkerchief on his journey or burns it in the fire?
              My point is this is more of a hindsight thing. Like he'd carry out the attack then be like "damn, what luck! I'm clean as a whistle!" But before he did it, he must have foreseen that with his current plan there's a strong chance he'd be soaked. With such tight timing, knowing that him being spotless clean is VITAL, he would have had to have a better plan in place to ensure that I should think.

              Also it was said the killers hand was covered in blood btw, that's what led to the conclusion that the jacket had been removed (by a blood soaked hand).

              If he'd done it himself, I think we're getting into the territory of him having to have worn a mask etc. lol... Quite stupid of him to not think of just chucking something over her... And there's perhaps a chance the jacket was placed there specifically to create confusion like this.

              The protection is just not adequate as far as I'm concerned to be able to get out in 10 minutes... Thrown over her is a different story, but worn, there's just too much exposure IMO. If he wasn't covered he was LUCKY, and with such premeditation, I'm sure he tried hard to eliminate any element of luck.

              I can't imagine formulating a plan that relies on the slim chance of blood going everywhere expect onto himself.

              He couldn't take anything blood stained with him as it'd transfer onto his pocket lining etc. It'd have to be wrapped if he did. If that iron bar was the weapon then we see clearly it must have been wrapped, so it raises the possibility...

              If the Johnstons were involved, he would have a large window to do things once he got home, as well as the odds of crime scene tampering being heightened, or even them going in to do certain things while William is out. AFAIK we can't tell when the blood spray was created or when the mack etc. was burned.

              Comment


              • The problem with the notion of the coat being thrown over her is that there would have been no blood spatter around the room. The fact that there was blood spatter pretty categorically rules this out.

                Wallace, although using protection, might still have expected to have gotten some blood on him (possibly hand and face) and intended to clean up in the back kitchen sink. Even if the police had found traces of blood in the sink it still wouldnít have definitely pointed at William. It would have been reasonable to have suggested that the killer wouldnít have wanted to go out onto the streets and headed home covered in blood and so he cleaned up in the sink. As it happened, he was fortunate and didnít get any on his face. Alternatively what if heíd simply got a few specks which he wiped of with a handkerchief which he then discarded (or even burned in the fire?) He had the mirror in the Parlour to check himself.

                A couple of questions.

                When you said that the crime scene was similar or identical to the scene of the robbery at number 19 what was your source for that?

                I wonder if we have been limiting ourselves by assuming that the weapon was an iron bar or a poker? What if Wallace used some other unnamed object which caused similar damage? Might not this explain why the police didnít find the weapon? They were limiting there search to a bar or a poker to the exclusion of anything else.
                Regards

                Herlock






                "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  The problem with the notion of the coat being thrown over her is that there would have been no blood spatter around the room. The fact that there was blood spatter pretty categorically rules this out.

                  Wallace, although using protection, might still have expected to have gotten some blood on him (possibly hand and face) and intended to clean up in the back kitchen sink. Even if the police had found traces of blood in the sink it still wouldnít have definitely pointed at William. It would have been reasonable to have suggested that the killer wouldnít have wanted to go out onto the streets and headed home covered in blood and so he cleaned up in the sink. As it happened, he was fortunate and didnít get any on his face. Alternatively what if heíd simply got a few specks which he wiped of with a handkerchief which he then discarded (or even burned in the fire?) He had the mirror in the Parlour to check himself.

                  A couple of questions.

                  When you said that the crime scene was similar or identical to the scene of the robbery at number 19 what was your source for that?

                  I wonder if we have been limiting ourselves by assuming that the weapon was an iron bar or a poker? What if Wallace used some other unnamed object which caused similar damage? Might not this explain why the police didnít find the weapon? They were limiting there search to a bar or a poker to the exclusion of anything else.
                  Yes exactly that is the problem, it wasn't thrown over her (or it was, and the splatter created after she had already been bodied), which, IMO, leaves the attacker too exposed for my liking.

                  I think he would have run his hands etc. under the sink ANYWAY just to be totally safe.

                  About the #19 robbery:

                  All the books and theories concerning the Julia Wallace murder do not reference the following curious fact. The police thought the circumstances surrounding the killing of Julia Wallace had an eerie parallel with a burglary that had taken place weeks before and just four doors away from the Wallaceís home in December 1930. Samuel Shotton, a retired postman, had returned from holiday with his wife Clara to find their house at 19 Wolverton Street burgled, yet there had been no forced entry, even though the perpetrator of the crime had needlessly tossed pillows and blankets from the bed up in the Shottons spare room - creating the impression that the burglar was a disorganised soul who had been rummaging about for money and valuables. The person who had burgled Samuel and Clara Shotton's home in Wolverton Street had known exactly where the couple kept their savings, and he had known that the couple were away on holiday, almost as if he had inside knowledge, and what's more, he had even gone to the trouble of replacing the lid on the box that had contained the savings.

                  Slemen, Tom. Murders of Merseyside . Unknown. Kindle Edition.
                  I don't care if the guy writes books about Jesus being E.T., unless someone can show that is false information, it's rather important IMO... We DO know a home on that end of the street was robbed in December 1930 using a dupe key, that much is confirmed... So then to my mind the attacker had more than likely attempted to confuse police by mimicking the crime scene. Or he went in, bodied Julia first, and then carried out the robbery (which is weakened in probability by the silence, that cupboard door must have been removed VERY carefully - weird).

                  If the other homes in the area that were robbed were on the odd side of Wolverton Street or Richmond Park, then I think we could make an educated guess that the burglar lived within those addresses, meaning easy access to the back entries for each home, and easy access back into his own home unseen.

                  About the weapon, yes, it is possible. I find it somewhat suspicious that he had apparently never seen that bar in his life, and the excuse for how the poker must have gone missing... But he also randomly mentioned a missing dog lash he said had been gone for a YEAR - which is also strange/suspicious - and he specified the material it was made from etc. But there could have been any manner of weaponry used... As for the police search, I think they would have taken interest in ANY item which had blood upon it, not just discarded anything that wasn't a bar or poker.

                  Comment


                  • About the weapon, yes, it is possible. I find it somewhat suspicious that he had apparently never seen that bar in his life, and the excuse for how the poker must have gone missing... But he also randomly mentioned a missing dog lash he said had been gone for a YEAR - which is also strange/suspicious - and he specified the material it was made from etc. But there could have been any manner of weaponry used... As for the police search, I think they would have taken interest in ANY item which had blood upon it, not just discarded anything that wasn't a bar or poker.
                    Its perhaps strange though that the police could have missed the bar that someone alleged had been found at a later date when the police had taken out the fire and examined the chimney breast.

                    If it was a different weapon maybe Wallace wiped off the blood?
                    Regards

                    Herlock






                    "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                    Comment


                    • I don't care if the guy writes books about Jesus being E.T., unless someone can show that is false information, it's rather important IMO... We DO know a home on that end of the street was robbed in December 1930 using a dupe key, that much is confirmed
                      The problem is that when someone makes an assertion then the burden of proof is with them. Slemanís has posited a theory which is based on an alleged confession. So really we need corroboration for how closely the crime sceneís resembled each other. Can we be sure that a duplicate key was used? Couldnít the Housebreaker just have picked the locks in some way? Couldnít he just have had a set of skeleton keys which fit random doors? I donít know. So many questions in this case.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        The problem is that when someone makes an assertion then the burden of proof is with them. Slemanís has posited a theory which is based on an alleged confession. So really we need corroboration for how closely the crime sceneís resembled each other. Can we be sure that a duplicate key was used? Couldnít the Housebreaker just have picked the locks in some way? Couldnít he just have had a set of skeleton keys which fit random doors? I donít know. So many questions in this case.
                        Yeah well the only way that will happen is if someone sees the files, or finds information about that specific set of burglaries. Or if someone can get in touch with Tom and ask where he got the info.

                        I think it was determined a dupe or skeleton key was used. All the newspaper reports say as much. "Random doors" I don't think so... The burglar always entered when the occupants were absent, in all 20 to 30 break-ins, so he (or they) would have to know when a home is empty. Really, we just need extensive information on these burglaries otherwise there's a lot of guesswork and theorizing needed.

                        And I don't really believe the confession, it seems implausible. However, the fact he really had been at (and died at) that nursing home, and the fact that the person who relayed the alleged confession knew very weird specific details (like the name of the cat, and the fact it had been missing) gives it weight... I don't think it happened as per the confession, but I feel like John really did say SOMETHING... I think perhaps Tom took a small bit of info he was given and then turned it into a full series of fictionalized events.

                        Then again, even if it is entirely falsified, it does not make the Johnstons any less suspicious. But again this is where really you need to see the files, because I want to see all statements made by the Johnstons (ALL of them, including everyone else who was in that home, as well as Phyllis and Norah's boyfriend). I contacted Merseyside Police but they said I'm "not entitled" to the case files. So if anyone knows how other authors have got copies of it I'm all ears... Antony said he would put this info on his site but nothing has been added yet, so I'm considering trying to get a copy of the files. More than likely, the case is very easily solveable if you have ALL the information in front of you, rather than the tidbits authors bother to supply to support their own ideas. Also more than likely with all the statements etc. you could either raise someone as more suspicious, or rule another person out.

                        I did not know the police took the fireplace out.

                        Comment


                        • The burglar always entered when the occupants were absent, in all 20 to 30 break-ins, so he (or they) would have to know when a home is empty
                          Doesnt this count heavily against a connection as Julia was at home. The downstairs lights would have been on letting a potential burglar know that this house was a no-go.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Doesnt this count heavily against a connection as Julia was at home. The downstairs lights would have been on letting a potential burglar know that this house was a no-go.
                            If the scenes are truly as identical as claimed, then it was almost definitely staged to be the same on purpose. I think lights weren't visible from the back, but still... My thought was that it was staged to look the same to confuse police and make them think the housebreaker did it.

                            Comment


                            • Just curious, the jacket was a raincoat right? Did it have a hood?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                                Just curious, the jacket was a raincoat right? Did it have a hood?
                                No hood. It would have looked something like this I assume.

                                https://www.google.com/search?q=1930...Cj8gpNz3xPIznM
                                Regards

                                Herlock






                                "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X