Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I also just found something interesting in the timeline of events...

Then Mr. Johnston said to him, "Is everything all right upstairs, before I go for the police?"

The prisoner goes upstairs, comes down again, and says, "Everything is all right. There is in a dish they have not taken." Mr. Johnston then went for the police.

Mrs. Johnston started to light a fire in the kitchen, and the prisoner helped her. Then Mrs. Johnston and the prisoner returned to the sitting-room and stood by the
body. Then the prisoner says, "Why, whatever was she doing with her mackintosh and my mackintosh" ; and you will hear how a mackintosh was rolled up and pressed against her. Mrs. Johnston said, "Is that your mackintosh ?" and Wallace, stooping down and fingering it, said, "Yes, it is mine."

Now Wallace gave several variations about when he had first discovered that mackintosh. IF he was truthful that he had found it on his third visit (when he came down from upstairs), then it's possible it was planted while he was up there in an "innocent Wallace" scenario. Wallace told Munro he found it on his third visit:

When we got in [he and Mrs Johnston], I looked more carefully, and saw something under her shoulder that looked like a piece of mackintosh. Looking closely, I thought there were two mackintoshes there, and said to Mrs Johnston ‘Why, what was she doing with her mackintosh; and my mackintosh’. We both looked and I touched it, and then saw that there was only one mackintosh, and that it looked like mine. Mrs Johnston said ‘why; is it your mackintosh?’ I said ‘yes’.

Gannon, John. The Killing of Julia Wallace . Amberley Publishing. Kindle Edition.

If true, this could indicate that it was planted while Wallace was upstairs.

Mr. Johnston and Mrs. Johnston had already seen Mr. Wallace go from room-to-room upstairs checking that all was well... So then why would they want him to go back upstairs? Why didn't Mr. Johnston just move his f*cking ass to the cops already? Is he stupid?

Another thing you might consider in an "innocent Wallace" scenario (if that's the train you're on):

Mrs Johnston noticed that the fire in the kitchen range was almost out, barring a couple of embers that were still glowing. ‘Well, we’ll have a fire,’ she decided.

Gannon, John. The Killing of Julia Wallace . Amberley Publishing. Kindle Edition.

That was after the partially burnt mackintosh was discovered. Was there some piece of evidence that had been put into that fire, and did she want to ensure it was completely cindered? Was that the real reason she chucked more wood upon it? Had they done anything else untoward while Wallace was upstairs, had he been innocent?

It was posed earlier: Why would the Johnstons lock the back door if they had committed the crime without Wallace's aid. The simple answer is that by locking it, they could ensure that they would be with Wallace when he made the discovery, and be sure that he would certainly request they come inside when he saw what had happened. The perfect way to excuse fingerprints, and potentially even tamper with the crime scene.

---

But yes if anyone who can post the statement of the residents at 27 Wolverton Street, that would be insanely helpful to the cause.

[WallaceWackedHer]

( just reading more of the trial) If John Johnston had any kind of connection with the murder , would he when asked have stated "Wallace and Julia were a very loving couple". I should think his best comment on the question of their relationship, would be 'I'm afraid I am not in a position to say 'Or words to that effect. I believe this to be an important factor in the Johnstons not being involved.

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?

[WallaceWackedHer]

No the bar wasn't found. Can anyone explain to me the importance the police put on always having to find the weapon. In those days it would incriminate no one, providing their were no prints on it.

It was apparently found in fact:

Noticing that there was a gap between the back wall of the fireplace and the hearth—a gap about two inches deep and roughly the width of a candle—he got hold of a screwdriver to scoop out the residuum … and prised up the iron bar that had been lying there since the beginning of January 1931. He wiped away the covering of dust and examined the iron bar. As far as he could see there were no stains upon it, nothing to indicate that it had been used as a murder weapon. Later he informed the police of his find and handed the iron bar over to them. And once again, it disappeared. Nothing was said about it. Nothing has ever been said. But there are three separate people (two of them ex-policemen) who vouch for the fact that it was found at the back of the fireplace. Some time between Mrs Draper’s last visit to the house on January 7th and the night of the murder the iron bar must have rolled under the gas-fire and down the gap at the back.

Goodman, Jonathan. The Killing of Julia Wallace (True Crime History) . The Kent State University Press. Kindle Edition.

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.

[moste]

Interesting fact:. Wallace saw to it that when arrangements were made for Julia's burial , the grave was planned and readied for his own eventual internment. Indicative of his innocense ?

[moste]

Are you sure the bar was found? I don't think it ever was.
Edit - oh, I see, you're assuming Goodman was correct...

No the bar wasn't found. Can anyone explain to me the importance the police put on always having to find the weapon. In those days it would incriminate no one, providing their were no prints on it.

[moste]

( just reading more of the trial) If John Johnston had any kind of connection with the murder , would he when asked have stated "Wallace and Julia were a very loving couple". I should think his best comment on the question of their relationship, would be 'I'm afraid I am not in a position to say 'Or words to that effect. I believe this to be an important factor in the Johnstons not being involved.

[gallicrow]

By the way, considering the bar was found, Parkes is a proven liar.

According to Parkes, Parry told him he dropped the bar down a grid. So since he obviously made that up, what's to say everything else in his testimony isn't bullsh*t as well?

Are you sure the bar was found? I don't think it ever was.
Edit - oh, I see, you're assuming Goodman was correct...

[WallaceWackedHer]

By the way, considering the bar was found, Parkes is a proven liar.

According to Parkes, Parry told him he dropped the bar down a grid. So since he obviously made that up, what's to say everything else in his testimony isn't bullsh*t as well?

[WallaceWackedHer]

PC James Edward Serjeant said that on January 20th, he was on duty around Menlove Gardens and Green Lane. “I left Allerton Police Station at 7.40 and crossed over to the junction of Allerton Road and Green Lane. A man came up to me – I recognise him as the accused now – and asked me to direct him to Menlove Gardens East. I told him there was no such place, but there was a North, South and West. The man said he was an insurance agent and he was looking for a Mr Quallthorp, as he spelled the name to me. I told the man to try Menlove Avenue.
Hard to figure why he didn't try 25 Menlove Ave. P.C. Serjeant said he spelled out Quallthorp, that's strange.

Taken from : The Wallace murder case . Outline.com

Quite right. I wonder how he spelled it out vs. how he said it. I wonder if he also pronounced it as "thorp". My very early impression of Wallace when I was first introduced to this case (and one that has persisted) was that he was a man trying WAY too hard to give off an impression of cluelessness.

In statements Antony has included in his book, Wallace said he was off to "Menlove Avenue East" to see "A. M. Qualtrough" or something, and then we have him saying "Quallthorp" to the officer. That's why I asked if anyone who believes in his absolute innocence can explain why he may have such appalling memory... Like honestly if he had some kind of memory or brain issue it'd look really good for his innocence...

Unfortunately though, I believe Antony is probably wrong. I have seen this same statement in various newspapers and in Goodman's book. All contain the Menlove Avenue East/West mistake, but all write "R. M. Qualtrough". So I'd be inclined to believe that in the files Antony read, he mistook an A for an R, which in old timey handwriting is a very easy mistake.

I have also found that during the trial, when replying to Hemmerde about whether he'd counted the notes, his response was "inaudible from the Press box" (this exchange):

Mr. Hemmerde - It is clear then, you did say you
counted them. You see the surprise it has caused. Have you
ever said such a thing before, even to your solicitor or
counsel ? - Have I ever said what?

That you counted those notes? - I do not know.

Maybe the inaudibility was due to commotion in the courtroom (Hemmerde pointed out the "surprise it has caused") or because Wallace had replied very meekly.

Points missing from the Wyndham Brown trial transcript:

1) Caird says he visited Wallace to play chess sometimes, and on occasion Wallace and Julia would play music for him.

2) Caird denies that Wallace had been seeing another woman.

3) Beattie denies the rumor that Wallace was so callous that he had attended the chess club on the 22nd (lmfao).

4) Caird claims that Wallace chose to only go to the chess club once a week because he didn't like to leave Julia at home alone.

---

It is established by Caird that the members of the club knew that the Gardens were in the "Menlove Avenue district". Being that Menlove Avenue borders Calderstones, one would think Wallace would have been able to get to the Avenue very easily, and then only have to inquire on the final tram to be dropped off at Menlove Gardens... But again he had absolutely no idea where the Gardens were, just the district, so perhaps that is why he inquired early.

This is from Wyndham Brown's book, but an important inclusion:

When you went to Calderstones, as your diary shows,
used not you to go up Menlove Avenue ? - We probably
did, but I did not know whether there was any other
route or not.

Did you not know Menlove Avenue quite well ? - No, I
did not.

I see here twice, May 22nd, 1929, and August 30th, you
go to Calderstones ; that is twice in a few months ? - Yes,
quite possible.

You did not know Menlove Avenue well? - I did
not.

How used you to go to Woolton Woods with your wife ?
- Took the car to Smithdown Road corner. I probably
enquired of some driver of a car which car would take us
there, and get on that car.

You would find yourself then at the Penny Lane
junction ? - Possibly.

I also just saw that it IS indeed true, as confirmed in the Goodman book, that the missing iron bar was found behind/beneath the fireplace. The suggestion is that it had rolled underneath. No blood was found upon it (but it would be pretty stupid for a killer-Wallace to leave a blood-soaked weapon in such a place). The suggestion is possible I guess (that it rolled underneath the fireplace), but if so, Draper should have known that. Julia wasn't known to clean much if at all, and Wallace said he had little to nothing to do with the cleaning and hadn't even seen such a bar in his life.

Of course, the poker was indeed never found.

[moste]

PC James Edward Serjeant said that on January 20th, he was on duty around Menlove Gardens and Green Lane. “I left Allerton Police Station at 7.40 and crossed over to the junction of Allerton Road and Green Lane. A man came up to me – I recognise him as the accused now – and asked me to direct him to Menlove Gardens East. I told him there was no such place, but there was a North, South and West. The man said he was an insurance agent and he was looking for a Mr Quallthorp, as he spelled the name to me. I told the man to try Menlove Avenue.
Hard to figure why he didn't try 25 Menlove Ave. P.C. Serjeant said he spelled out Quallthorp, that's strange.

Taken from : The Wallace murder case . Outline.com

[WallaceWackedHer]

.Quote: 'The problem is the difficulty in digging up the Anfield housebreakings. They appear to not have been reported until after Julia was murdered, then suddenly it comes out in the press there'd been a string of 20 to 30 other robberies using a duplicate key'

The 65,000 dollar question is ' Did the Anfield Burglarys stop after the 20 the of January?'

Yes, it's known the dupe key housebreaking stopped after the 20th.

[moste]

.Quote: 'The problem is the difficulty in digging up the Anfield housebreakings. They appear to not have been reported until after Julia was murdered, then suddenly it comes out in the press there'd been a string of 20 to 30 other robberies using a duplicate key'

The 65,000 dollar question is ' Did the Anfield Burglarys stop after the 20th of January?'

[WallaceWackedHer]

WWH, you could be right and I could be wrong but at this point in time I still strongly feel that this was Wallace alone. I think that it’s a simpler solution. I’m wary of conspiracies and rumour to be honest. I’m open to having my mind changed though. Keep digging.

We will keep on it. The problem is the difficulty in digging up the Anfield housebreakings. They appear to not have been reported until after Julia was murdered, then suddenly it comes out in the press there'd been a string of 20 to 30 other robberies using a duplicate key.

By the way, Mrs. Johnston specifically said the back door and that it was the "usual thing", hence why I felt it was a big error to pick up on:

He said he was knocking ? - Yes.

Did you hear that ? - Yes, I heard that knock.

You heard knocking on the back door ; was that before
you went out ? - Yes, just a few minutes. We were getting
ready to go out.

A few minutes before you went out ? - Yes.

That would support his story so far, when he said that
he knocked at the back door and could not get in and
went round to the front ? - Yes. It was so usual we did
not take any notice.

By the way, the person who claimed Amy indulged in "flagellation" also identified Julia's pre-marital full name as "Julia Thorpe Dennis", my source tells me the author is reputable, and that it was verified that the "Thorpe" middle name was true, but it appears to not be common knowledge etc. Whenever people identify very specific and obscure details which are then verified, it tends to make me give credence to the rest of what they are saying, as it makes it less likely they're just crackpots inventing things.

It may have been just a rumor, but I don't believe it was made up by the author, and it does fit Amy's "domineering" persona, the "dog whip" and the "sexually odd" comment.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Oh my god it's so f*cking boring, someone else please help me:

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/63623779

That's chapter one, there's so many, and it might not even be that because I don't see that it confirmed it was published in a book?

---

Btw "Under a Mask" is also about a fraud and someone assuming the identity of another (hence the title).





"At the sign of the Golden Horn" is summarized below:

[WallaceWackedHer]

People were wrong. There is a J. Kirkwood Leys publication in 1889. Here is a short quote from it, I have the whole thing, it's about a murder and subsequent trial:

"But, gentlemen, you will say others besides Captain Everett, all who happened to be at the dinner-table that evening, had the same knowledge. It is true, and therefore I now come to the night of Dr. Redfern's death, the evening of the day on which the prisoner had the conversation with the solicitor of which I have already told you. And when you have considered the events of that night it will be for you to say whether or not Captain Everett, and he alone, had an opportunity of committing this murder."

Stay tuned.

I skipped to the ending and some other guy Hedley's "name is cleared" and I don't know wtf happened in the middle or to Everett or any of that LOL. Looks like I'm gonna have to read the entire ******* novel. Man........ It's a typical long-as-f*ck tedious Victorian era story. This is going to be an absolute nightmare... But I will subject myself to this horror in the name of the Wallace case.

Here's a picture of an excerpt:

http://www.upl.co/uploads/144922book1551657671.png