Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

More newspaper reporting:

It is believed robbery was the motive, as for £4 treasury notes are missing from a box in the living room. The box was hidden behind some books on a shelf, and the assailant must have made an extensive search before finding it ... The woman's injuries might have been caused by an instrument such as a jemmy [crowbar].

...

The street has been visited by a burglar who has perpetrated more than a score of raids of houses in the neighbourhood.

I didn't before know the box was hidden behind books, and I am not sure if by "neighbourhood" they mean very close surrounding streets/Wolverton itself, or just the entirety of the Anfield district?

I believe it was said that aside from the home broken into in December, there was another on the street "12 or 18" months prior.

More on Amy:

Mrs. Wallace stated that she had no idea what she said to the Press representatives would be published. She thought when she admitted them into her home they were policemen.

The coroner said he had no doubt that if Mrs. Wallace would point out anything that was inaccurate, the Press would undoubtedly publish a correction.

Mrs. Wallace: I have not read it. I was too annoyed.

The Coroner: Did they say they were police? - No. They knocked at the door, and as I thought they were police, I admitted them. They then told me they belonged to a certain newspaper.

The Coroner: You did not start to give an account before they told you who they were? - No ; I was not giving an account. I thought they would say "Do you mind if we put this in the newspaper?"

On the crime:

Police believe that Mrs. Wallace was struck with a small heavy instrument which the murderer placed in his pocket.

...

It is thought to be certain that the murderer's clothes were saturated with blood, and that before making his escape, he went to the bathroom and washed himself.

...

The washing basin, along with pieces of piping and the kitchen sink, have been removed for microscopical examination [this turned up nothing].

A minute scrutiny of every part of the house including door knobs, floors, and carpets has been made.

Seems the doors in that home were all knobs, which would require turning, making it even more difficult to avoid getting either fingerprints or blood (from used gloves) upon them, unless all doors were left open, or two people were in the home.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I just googled The Wallace Murder case. Outline.com and there is a complete rundown of the entire mystery which the author explains is completely unbiased to any of the possible suspects. Near the end we hear from the Johnston's grandchildren and how they know without doubt of their relations innocence in all of this.

They didn't even have grandchildren in the home at the time (in fact, I think they didn't even have grandchildren at all at this time?). It was Arthur Mills, Norah, Robert and his girlfriend, John and Florence living there.

The call in on Wilkes is more legitimate IIRC as it might have been from someone who was in the home.

Though it's the same thing that produced the bullsh*t Parkes nonsense where he claimed Parry admitted he dropped an the iron bar down a grid (even though the bar was in fact behind the fireplace at 29 Wolverton Street - hence he's lying, obviously).

The only word we have as to the legitimacy (etc.) of the claims of the Johnstons is from members of their own family - and Wallace in regards to whatever happened at 8.45... They were off to visit her the night of the move? Allegedly they already had tonnes of stuff packed, why not take some of it with them that night to lighten the load for the next day instead of leaving the home empty handed?

Where are the statements of Norah, Francis McElroy, Arthur, Robert, and his girlfriend? Where is the FULL statement of 27 Wolverton. Where is the full statement of the widowed Cadwallader at 33 Wolverton? Do they match the testimony of Wallace and the Johnstons? Did they not hear any commotion at all when the body was discovered?

If Wallace was involved I think Gordon Parry was probably tricked into making that phone call under a false pretext, setting him up as a scapegoat. It didn't MATTER if Marsden had an alibi for the killing or not, either way the alias and false alibi heavily implicate Parry who is close friends with Marsden, and perhaps even Marsden via conspiracy to commit the deed, assuming a third assailant.

In other words, Gannon's theory (minus Wallace's involvement) is exactly what Wallace WANTED us to think if the housebreaker framing attempt fell through, in my view. It may also be correct, as I've always felt Marsden's alibi was pathetic...BUT recall Wallace had recently been ill, Julia was ill, Alan Close was ill - sounds like there was legitimately some sort of bug going around which does add slight credence. But of course it's dodgy.

You are aware Wallace had a well developed moustache? I forgot this fact, but that might ruin him if he got blood spray on his face (probably trickier to remove blood from any thick hair - DEFINITELY head hair but maybe thick moustaches/beards too?).

It's more conceivable he hit her in such a way that blood would spray AWAY from him, rather than him going Bateman in a raincoat, gloves and hat, then chucking the hat and gloves into the fire - though gloves would be crucial yes. APPARENTLY it was decided that there were no blood marks consistent with blood dripping off of a waterproof surface at the scene. Not sure as to the truth of that. And the staining of the jacket was heavy both inside and out... So was it used as protection or as a makeshift rag?

I don't really buy Tom's idea. I think stuff is being embezzled by him from what the actual words of the supposed confession really were (e.g. why was Julia in the parlor, how didn't she hear the cupboard door ripped off, or them going upstairs?) - Evidently she was killed first so if they really tried to rob the place they went to the parlor first. And even if he made it up they are still obviously suspect.

I initially thought the cash box was inside the cabinet. In crime scene photos though it appears to be on top of a shelf, which is way more blatant to a burglar. Lol. Conspicuous box 7 feet off the ground...

---

I'm on the tricked Parry and scheming Wallace train, with Amy motive. Until corroborated by full statements from 27 and 33, I also think the Johnstons played a part. Even if only to show up at the scene at the right time to act as witness... Remember how long it took Johnston to fetch the police and for the police to arrive. Plenty of time for crime scene tampering.

Slemem also makes legitimately good points in his book, why is Florence so preoccupied with matches when her brain-oozing neighbor is lying there in front of her? Wallace wasn't the only unnaturally calm one that night, evidently.

I think people just hate that a guy who writes about Jesus being an extraterrestrial, and about lizard people etc, might actually have uncovered an important grain of truth about the case in a mere side chapter of one of his books

---

Moving the next day is a practice which has been employed by other killers like Steuerman (the Bagel King), by the way... I don't know that the Johnstons killed her though. But I think like Parry they were possibly railroaded into doing SOMETHING by Wallace. There are other possibilities.

They have never been really explored as potential suspects before which is insane.

[moste]

https://inacityliving.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-wallace-murder-case.html

[moste]

As far as I can recall no statements from the Johnston’s have been reproduced in books. They are DPP files (taken on 21st January) and so it would only have been someone that gained access like an author....so you need Antony (unless Rod has seen them...which is possible)

I just googled The Wallace Murder case. Outline.com and there is a complete rundown of the entire mystery which the author explains is completely unbiased to any of the possible suspects. Near the end we hear from the Johnston's grandchildren and how they know without doubt of their relations innocence in all of this.

[WallaceWackedHer]

But did they?

Do we know for a fact that the Johnston’s key would have opened the Wallace’s door or was Johnston just offering to try his own key to see if it worked should Wallace have been unable to get in?

They should have if they didn't. Another neighbor, Mr. Cadwallader (hope I spelt that correctly) had been able to wander into Wallace's home while drunk, mistaking it for his own house, causing Julia to scream. Mr. Cadwallader lived at 33 Wolverton street and was friends with Mr. Johnston. Cadwallader died so he couldn't have done it... But Johnston and other neighbors on the street were aware of the security issue.

[WallaceWackedHer]

From memory I believe that the surname was Holme rather than Holmes. I think that their names were Walter and Bertha.

You are right and I have the quote here. Sadly this is a short statement, and does not then go on to either corroborate or deny the events that took place later:

Next door to the Wallace’s lived Mr and Mrs Holme at number 27. Mr Holme arrived back from work at 6.30 pm, and while he and his wife were having tea in the kitchen a noise was heard which attracted their attention. Mrs Holme asked her husband if someone was at their front door, Mr Holme replied that the sound came from the Wallace’s. Mrs Holme stated that it was like the sound of someone falling — shortly afterwards the front door of 29 was heard to close. Since it would have taken a few minutes for the Holmes to settle down to tea these times may be less than accurate. The sound of a falling body is distinct and the walls of the houses in Wolverton Street were thin. Certainly this disturbance was heard at a time when Wallace was still on the premises. Did, perhaps, Wallace leave by the front door at some time between 6.30 pm and 6.50 pm, and is that the reason why he gave differing accounts regarding the circumstance of his departure from the back door?

Bartle, Ronald. The Telephone Murder: The Mysterious Death of Julia Wallace (Kindle Locations 3388-3393). Waterside Press. Kindle Edition.

As we know, NONE of the Johnston family heard that, even Arthur literally adjacent to the room in which Julia was killed. So either they are mistaken about what they heard (the timings do seem off and more consistent with Alan Close's visit - though admittedly if someone asked me to time when certain events happened I could DEFINITELY not do so with any accuracy rofl), or the Johnston family are all deaf as doorposts.

It may well be that they are mistaken. However I don't see any mention of the apparent thuds coming from the direction of the parlor at 8.25 which the Johnstons believe they heard, if Mr. and Mrs. Holme had given any further information in their statement, that would have been helpful. They didn't hear the crashing cupboard door I assume? Evidently that was removed with some care, or days in advance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have seen the 27 Wolverton Street statement I believe?

As far as I can recall no statements from the Johnston’s have been reproduced in books. They are DPP files (taken on 21st January) and so it would only have been someone that gained access like an author....so you need Antony (unless Rod has seen them...which is possible)

[Herlock Sholmes]

The police knew Johnston had a key to access that home for one thing,

But did they?

Do we know for a fact that the Johnston’s key would have opened the Wallace’s door or was Johnston just offering to try his own key to see if it worked should Wallace have been unable to get in?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I should like for someone to post the full statement the residents at 27 Wolverton Street gave (I believe you identified them as the Holmes family)

From memory I believe that the surname was Holme rather than Holmes. I think that their names were Walter and Bertha.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I can't agree with that statement, sorry. House breakers typically will avoid confrontation at all costs , and if disturbed will run a mile to escape the situation . Take James Hanratty as your average run of the mill burglar . He relied on cunning and stealth, caught a few times never carried a weapon are you confusing Liverpool UK with Liverpool New York?

You don't think crooks have anything on them in case things go south or they need to pry something open? One of my friends, for some reason, used to hang around with a guy who broke into houses. He would flee if caught (don't think he ever was though), but he never went into people's homes with just his bare hands.

And in any case we can see here that the perpetrator obviously DID act with violence, so evidently they had that mindset.

I would NEVER enter someone's home bare handed, that's pure madness. Robbery is obviously a very dangerous situation for the criminal, not only the victims. To go in with empty pockets is just insanity.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I don't think they would mind Wallace being found guilty if they themselves were the guilty parties. Suspects or not. I don't see why you would disagree on that. If Wallace was found not guilty , they may have become suspects, so why if they were guilty would they acknowledge the Wallaces as a very loving couple, much better to say ' no comment or 'I can't say ' No,that actually speaks of the Johnston's innocence for me.

They should have been prime suspects right from the start, as having either involvement, or as the criminals. The police knew Johnston had a key to access that home for one thing, and knew an almost identical robbery had happened at 19 Wolverton Street, and that the Johnstons were the only other ones with Wallace when the body was found. The general public thought it was odd they moved out the very next day. A "planned" move... They were also randomly "on their way" to Phyllis's place the night before at 9 PM at just the perfect timing to catch Wallace, and had also apparently "packed" many of their things... All according to nobody but themselves.

You have seen the 27 Wolverton Street statement I believe? Would you be able to post the full general gist of it. I'd like to see if any details corroborate the story given by Wallace and/or the Johnstons. If you cannot remember, please point me in the direction of a source where you got it from. This is CRUCIAL evidence.

I also don't think they could really deny something undeniable as decade-long neighbors (and obviously not say they heard them argue all the time if it's untrue), it's weak evidence to use that to clear someone lol. And yeah I do kinda think someone might feel guilt about having an innocent man sent to his death but that's JMO based on how I might feel lol.

But the reason why I think Wallace probably would have had involvement, is because the Johnstons DID lie in court and in Press statements, and he (Wallace) didn't seem to mind or notice. And Parry's false alibi is just too much a turn of good fortune to have the PERFECT alternate suspect implicate himself. And of course other things about Wallace that suggest either his absolute guilt, or ease at which he becomes confused/mixes up details.

Why did Mr. Johnston say that Mr. Wallace had to "push on the back door very hard" and force it open? We know that is a lie. He said the exact opposite in court.

Why did Mrs. Johnston and Wallace flip back and forth about which of them had uttered the phrase "whatever have they used"?

---

I think Parkes is evil, there is no way Gordon Parry told him he dropped that bar down a grid - I always suspected it but now seeing the bar was found it's obviously made up. What a b*stard falsely besmirching the name of a dead man who can't even defend himself.

[moste]

Yes of course if you're breaking into someone's home or robbing them you would not go in empty handed, that would be ridiculous.

I can't agree with that statement, sorry. House breakers typically will avoid confrontation at all costs , and if disturbed will run a mile to escape the situation . Take James Hanratty as your average run of the mill burglar . He relied on cunning and stealth, caught a few times never carried a weapon are you confusing Liverpool UK with Liverpool New York?

[moste]

Yes of course, if they were in it together they'd obviously not throw him under the bus - though they also have to stick to their own story and initial statements which were given. But still in any case, I don't see that they'd necessarily want their innocent neighbor to be executed when they weren't even suspects lol.

More important to discern is the mackintosh and the events surrounding it, and the purpose of the initial "her mackintosh...and my mackintosh" statement.

Why would he use his own jacket, would no other jacket suitably cover his long upper body? Why the "slip" of "her mackintosh" if he'd done it himself? Apparently he had discovered his mackintosh on his FIRST VISIT into the parlor (a point of contention on trial, by the way - and this would be while the Johnstons were allegedly still outside), so the "slip" must be intentional and serve a purpose. He also gave that statement to Munro without trying to retract or alter it.

Seeing as it appears he wore gloves or something to that effect if he did it, and, if the bar was the weapon, wrapped that and burned the covering - then those things would have had to be incinerated. We see that there was a fire in the kitchen that was still going when he arrived home. Why didn't he just throw the mackintosh into the blazing fire when he left the home to entirely destroy that piece of evidence?

Arthur Mills (Mrs. Johnston's father) was literally a tiny dividing wall away, but no sounds were heard, not the thud of someone being hit with a bar and falling to the ground, not any sounds as the woman was struck repeatedly on the ground. Just nothing but eerie silence.

I should like for someone to post the full statement the residents at 27 Wolverton Street gave (I believe you identified them as the Holmes family). Did they corroborate the knocks? Their doors were basically touching each other so they should hear the front door. What time did they claim to hear the crashing/thudding sound again? Did they hear the commotion inside the home when the body was discovered? Did they basically corroborate ANY of the story that was given by the Johnstons and Wallace?

I don't think they would mind Wallace being found guilty if they themselves were the guilty parties. Suspects or not. I don't see why you would disagree on that. If Wallace was found not guilty , they may have become suspects, so why if they were guilty would they acknowledge the Wallaces as a very loving couple, much better to say ' no comment or 'I can't say ' No,that actually speaks of the Johnston's innocence for me.

[WallaceWackedHer]

A burglar wouldn't carry a murder weapon around with him unless he intended to murder someone would he ,afraid I don't follow'

Yes of course if you're breaking into someone's home or robbing them you would not go in empty handed, that would be ridiculous.

[moste]

It was apparently found in fact:



The poker, however, was not.

The murder weapon was important to find, because if it was an item from the home (such as the bar or poker Draper claimed missing) which was used it more implicates Wallace, since a burglar/killer would probably have something on them with which to carry out the act.

It is also important that the bar was found because it shows that Parkes is a liar and his testimony is bullshit. He probably suspected Parry and just invented everything to besmirch him - it was ALWAYS suspect that Parry would just blurt out "oh yeah by the way I threw the murder weapon down a grid", it's ridiculous. Taking his car to the garage with a bloodied glove sticking out of the glove box or whatever lmao.

Yes the "middle man" wanted money for the "story", but I think Parkes had wanted money for the story... Just when they tracked him down he felt pressured into giving it.

I've been going over Lily Hall's testimony as well. She said Wallace was in a "dark overcoat", but Wallace had claimed he had gone out wearing his "light fawn" jacket. Did any others he spoke to that night corroborate the dark overcoat, or did they indicate he had been wearing a fawn jacket? That said, a man bearing a remarkably similar physical description to Wallace apparently hailed a cab wearing a "dark overcoat" and holding an umbrella, fleeing towards Sefton Park (the area where Amy lived) at about 7.

A burglar wouldn't carry a murder weapon around with him unless he intended to murder someone would he ,afraid I don't follow'