Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Ven]

Another thing on Close, who did do his round that evening (regardless of the time for the moment). did he or did he not receive the empty milk pail back?
Did he look up, when at No. 31. to see who swapped it over?
In the trial. in his testimony, why wouldn't he have said what actually happened? Isn't it just as intriguing for a kid to say "I left the milk at the door and when i returned, from just a few yards away, the pail was returned empty!"

As a matter of curiosity, did the kids collect the cash?

[WallaceWackedHer]

But Alan didn't come forward at first, William didn't know he would, while the police heavily suspected him (immediately, this is apparent by the officer's notebook).

Why would he omit telling officers the milk boy was the last to see his wife alive if this is the be all and end all for him getting away with it?

Alan Close is 14, I remember being 14, he knows how serious murder and capital punishment is.

William's the one who said they ate together when he got in. If they did eat when he said, the stomach contents imply she died quite a bit after William left the house (this according to Gannon).

I did read the full paper I am already aware of all the things stated in it, the jacket wasn't placed on her head or held up in front of her by Julia waiting for a special surprise... The forensic evidence about the blood spray and the staining on the inner sleeves are consistent with someone having worn it when she was struck for one thing.

Who saw Wallace at the telephone box, on the tram, etc? Noone. Allegedly noone saw Gordon either. If either were sighted nobody came forward. Nobody came forward to say they saw Gordon's car somewhere else at the time either.

The forensic tests were off. I'm saying William would be unlikely to be well versed in forensics, and could not expect them to mess it up. To his mind he has no reason to be out for 2 hours. It's completely pointless. Going to Calderstones and back is enough.

I think William might have been bisexual. I don't think that was the motive. Amy seems involved, I think the motive relates to her... I don't outright think Amy was whipping people in Malaysia, but her personality fits the type of person who would have that type of kink. Amy would obviously have sexual needs for the LONG periods Joseph is away. At the same time, 69 year old Julia is deemed "virginal" by MacFall, and in any case a woman her age is unlikely to be very sexually active, while William is at an age where he may well be... He is very close to Amy... An affair between them is not at all unlikely... This is a significantly stronger motive than Julia frauding her age. There's no evidence at all that Wallace was recently told this information, or of any conversation where she randomly admitted it to him due to lamenting over not being spring chickens...

Anything with a fake address is easily accomplished with a real one. The fake address is only negative. The client name is clearly meant to be the Pru client, which is basically the entire basis for Gannon's book (I noticed you put Gannon as a reference, hence I reference his evidence a few times).

I'm not sure what time Amy actually left, as I don't see that it has been corroborated by anyone. One witness got the case reopened years after because, since the murder happened, he wrote dozens of letters to everyone including the home office stating he had DEFINITELY seen Amy with Wallace at Scotland Road around 8 PM, asking for directions to the ferry landind stage, while Amy looked nervous.

[Ven]

Hi WWH,

as stated, young Close DID do his rounds that night. Regardless of what he said happened, can you please "speculate" on what he did actually encounter, and how this would not have been just as intriguing/influential or otherwise on the case?

Ven
"its a blitz, it's a blitz...it's a ballroom blitz...yaaaaaahhhhhhhh...it's a ballroom blitz"

[WallaceWackedHer]

Another thing on Close, who did do his round that evening (regardless of the time for the moment). did he or did he not receive the empty milk pail back?
Did he look up, when at No. 31. to see who swapped it over?
In the trial. in his testimony, why wouldn't he have said what actually happened? Isn't it just as intriguing for a kid to say "I left the milk at the door and when i returned, from just a few yards away, the pail was returned empty!"

As a matter of curiosity, did the kids collect the cash?

He got it back. He was gloating that he was "the missing link" in the case among the other children because he had seen Julia. I'm not sure about the money. But I don't find his testimony to be very reliable... Maybe moderately... I definitely wouldn't take his word as some iron clad timestamp.

I do believe the alibi Wallace lucked out with from Alan, regardless of the details of how the crime was committed, was not factored in. Hence the ommission of mentioning him despite the fact it looked like Alan wasn't going to come forward at all.

[MK114]

Hi Ven,

Good questions. I don't claim to know all the answers about the case. I will say criminals make stupid mistakes all the time otherwise they wouldn't get caught. And some aren't caught even when they do make mistakes.

As far as a witness coming forward years later. To me its credible for a few reasons.
First witnesses are afraid whether from retaliation or not sure they want to be involved, Or just flat out being scared.

We need to look at motive. Who would benefit from the victims death. Money is always a winner but a close second would be domestic violence. I read somewhere that the Wallaces had an argument not long before Julia was murdered. That stands out also.

The fact that nothing was disturbed and reportedly only money was taken from one particular place would register high on my radar as something is amiss. That is not a typical burglary in my view. Burglars dont typically kill a home owner, they flee when confronted. Also being nothing was ransacked anywhere in the homeis strange.

I've found the most likely scenario is usually the correct scenario.

Respectfully,
MK114

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi Ven,

Good questions. I don't claim to know all the answers about the case. I will say criminals make stupid mistakes all the time otherwise they wouldn't get caught. And some aren't caught even when they do make mistakes.

As far as a witness coming forward years later. To me its credible for a few reasons.
First witnesses are afraid whether from retaliation or not sure they want to be involved, Or just flat out being scared.

We need to look at motive. Who would benefit from the victims death. Money is always a winner but a close second would be domestic violence. I read somewhere that the Wallaces had an argument not long before Julia was murdered. That stands out also.

The fact that nothing was disturbed and reportedly only money was taken from one particular place would register high on my radar as something is amiss. That is not a typical burglary in my view. Burglars dont typically kill a home owner, they flee when confronted. Also being nothing was ransacked anywhere in the homeis strange.

I've found the most likely scenario is usually the correct scenario.

Respectfully,
MK114

The burglary seems blatantly staged. However, apparently the scene at the burglary that took place just one month earlier was identical. Hence that adds an element of uncertainty if that turns out to be true.

[MK114]

Its possible that the attack was planned for the first burglary scenario but fell through for whatever reason.

It is certainly strange I'll agree with that. When things get weird it's best to stick to the known facts and keep it simple.

Respectfully,
MK114

[WallaceWackedHer]

Its possible that the attack was planned for the first burglary scenario but fell through for whatever reason.

It is certainly strange I'll agree with that. When things get weird it's best to stick to the known facts and keep it simple.

Respectfully,
MK114

If it turns out to be true, I think the same person is responsible for both crimes. Apparently, a hidden savings pot was emptied and replaced, and things randomly chucked about in one of the upstairs bedrooms. In my opinion that's an uncanny similarity I wouldn't be able to ignore.

If the staging was purposefully meant to simulate that burglary by William (to give the impression it was the same man), I think William would have nudged the police onto that particular lead. Rather than letting them ignore it.

I am seeing the full case file on Thursday, so if that's true, I can confirm it as a known fact, or quash that rumour.

Keeping it simple, I think the call screams practical joke (hence the details are very poor for any budding murderer - yet very amusing to trick someone with), while the crime scene has Wallace written all over it and appears highly haphazard (rather than carefully premeditated).

[MK114]

Yes the phone call is definitely weird it would be interesting to see the case file and what the police believed at the time.

I am one who believes that a person's behavior when confronted face to face is worthy of a lot of attention.

Respectfully,
MK114

[Ven]

But Alan didn't come forward at first, William didn't know he would, while the police heavily suspected him (immediately, this is apparent by the officer's notebook).
Doesn’t matter, see my other post about Close.

Why would he omit telling officers the milk boy was the last to see his wife alive if this is the be all and end all for him getting away with it?
No idea, but again refer to my post about Close, he was there, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, if he didn’t see what he testified, what did he see…and why would have this been just as “juicy”

Alan Close is 14, I remember being 14, he knows how serious murder and capital punishment is.
Maybe, but still doesn’t explain above point.

William's the one who said they ate together when he got in. If they did eat when he said, the stomach contents imply she died quite a bit after William left the house (this according to Gannon).
If William’s the murderer then he lied, so which one is it?

I did read the full paper I am already aware of all the things stated in it, the jacket wasn't placed on her head or held up in front of her by Julia waiting for a special surprise... The forensic evidence about the blood spray and the staining on the inner sleeves are consistent with someone having worn it when she was struck for one thing.
How do you get blood on the inner sleeves if you’re wearing it?

Who saw Wallace at the telephone box, on the tram, etc? Noone. Allegedly noone saw Gordon either. If either were sighted nobody came forward. Nobody came forward to say they saw Gordon's car somewhere else at the time either.
Hey, we agree on something!! So it could have been either of them then? … and William could have been on any tram!

The forensic tests were off. I'm saying William would be unlikely to be well versed in forensics, and could not expect them to mess it up. To his mind he has no reason to be out for 2 hours. It's completely pointless. Going to Calderstones and back is enough.
One hour, two hours… your point doesn’t change anything… was William well versed in forensics, chemistry is not forensics.

I think William might have been bisexual. I don't think that was the motive. Amy seems involved, I think the motive relates to her... I don't outright think Amy was whipping people in Malaysia, but her personality fits the type of person who would have that type of kink. Amy would obviously have sexual needs for the LONG periods Joseph is away. At the same time, 69 year old Julia is deemed "virginal" by MacFall, and in any case a woman her age is unlikely to be very sexually active, while William is at an age where he may well be... He is very close to Amy... An affair between them is not at all unlikely... This is a significantly stronger motive than Julia frauding her age.
Sorry, no way! If I wanted children, or have sex at 50, and I found out my "same" age wife was 16 years older…!!!!!

There's no evidence at all that Wallace was recently told this information, or of any conversation where she randomly admitted it to him due to lamenting over not being spring chickens...
I understand that , but we now know she was 16 years older… we don’t know a lot of conversations, feelings etc… but that she is 16 years older is now known. And you still haven’t come up with any other motive BASED ON FACT other than a "rumour" he was having an affair... that also didn't go anywhere after the trial and Acquittal!

Anything with a fake address is easily accomplished with a real one. The fake address is only negative. The client name is clearly meant to be the Pru client, which is basically the entire basis for Gannon's book (I noticed you put Gannon as a reference, hence I reference his evidence a few times).
I used lots of references, Gannon was merely one. A fake, but nearby, plausible address is better as explained in the paper… If you still disagree then I’m fine with that. I don’t agree but hey, that’s how your brain works.

I'm not sure what time Amy actually left, as I don't see that it has been corroborated by anyone. One witness got the case reopened years after because, since the murder happened, he wrote dozens of letters to everyone including the home office stating he had DEFINITELY seen Amy with Wallace at Scotland Road around 8 PM, asking for directions to the ferry landind stage, while Amy looked nervous.
Based on everything we have she left before William got there, but again no biggy. As far as the landing stage witness account goes… not sure what this means at all, William was still down near Menlove Gardens wasn’t he?

Ven
"Love, is like oxygen... it gets you high..."

[Ven]

Hey WWH,

I'm really looking forward to what you find in those files... then you coming to Melbourne and we sit down at a pub somewhere at end up laughing at how stupid we both were

Ven
"everybody needs a piece of the action...action...action...

[Ven]

If the new docs show it to be Ninjas then i understand why they didn't leave footprints on the parlour ceiling!!

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hey WWH,

I'm really looking forward to what you find in those files... then you coming to Melbourne and we sit down at a pub somewhere at end up laughing at how stupid we both were

Ven
"everybody needs a piece of the action...action...action...

Me too. Ideally I want to digitize the entire case file so it's publicly accessible for anyone to read.

Re: your other post, I'm on board with William lying, so I don't think we can safely say he did eat dinner when he got in.

Blood gets on the inner sleeve when the killer takes their hand out. There was a young girl who wore a pink bathrobe and murdered her parents, when they found the robe, it had staining on the inner sleeve where she'd removed it. It's considered a distinctive stain.

William boarded a tram home at 8 PM is the claim. The tram conductor being exactly bang on accurate cannot necessarily be expected. It is the problem I also have with his statement, but his persistence and die hard belief in what he saw is undeniable.

The fact she told him about her age over a random conversation about being spring chickens is also rumour. Well not actually rumour, there wasn't any rumour. There's nothing at all to say he didn't know her age, or conversely that he ever found out. I think it's possible he knew in the first years he met her but was cool with it (and covered it for her sake). I didn't know he even cared about having children.

Wallace didn't know about forensics, that's why he wouldn't know about the time of death thing. There's no reason to extend his outing beyond a trip there and then back home after. Hence I said if it was a plan (and much of everything suggests he was not the one who placed the call), then I think Parry called and fudged the details that Wallace had told him to give... I definitely don't think a fake address is viable or necessary.

I wouldn't really use Antony's book (Move to Murder) as a reference since it mixes fact with fiction. For example, there's passages about "M's gaudy ring" dropped in in exactly the same way as a passage where Wallace's chess opponent asks for Wallace's address. One of those is actual fact. But reading it, you don't know what's real and what's invented... Though quite obviously the theory presented as the answer is close to being literally impossible.

[MK114]

I know I've posted this before but I think its worth noting again. When a person doesn't use contractions like " I did not do it" instead of "I didn't do it" it is known investigation tool as a sign of guilt.

Take Bill Clinton's claim of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." The most famous denial ever. Lol.

I realize that is not evidence in a court of law however it is evidence to a good Investigator.

Respectfully,
MK114

[WallaceWackedHer]

I know I've posted this before but I think its worth noting again. When a person doesn't use contractions like " I did not do it" instead of "I didn't do it" it is known investigation tool as a sign of guilt.

Take Bill Clinton's claim of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." The most famous denial ever. Lol.

I realize that is not evidence in a court of law however it is evidence to a good Investigator.

Respectfully,
MK114

I'm unsure about forensic linguistics. According to that field of science, William is innocent, since he gives a very clear and concise declaration of innocence, when arrested and after sentencing.