Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

I’ve just received word that I have been promoted to Sergeant.

You should apply to join the Liverpool Police... They could do with "brains" like yours!

[RodCrosby]

Sorry Rod, I think we must have posted similar responses at the same time.

I'm happy you did. You, me and Justice Wright don't recognise that any of this stuff amounts to a hill of beans.

Neither did the Court of Appeal.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yawn. You continue to accumulate disinformation and misrepresentation points, your only "contribution" to this thread, it seems.

Wallace said in his first statement on the night of the murder that the back door "sticks sometimes" and repeated this under cross-examination.

In his book, Antony states that the stickiness of the back door was confirmed by the Wallaces' char-woman...

If you mean why did he have particular difficulty that night, well it was the first time he had been called away on a wild-goose chase, ever, and the first time he had cause to worry about what might be going on his house, ever. And it turned out that the front door had been bolted from the inside.

"It is not at all impossible that, under those circumstances, in that state of mind, he might have been so upset
at the moment as to have had a difficulty in overcoming the friction of the two locks."
Mr. Justice Wright, summing-up in R v Wallace

Who bolted the front door?

[etenguy]

I'm happy you did. You, me and Justice Wright don't recognise that any of this stuff amounts to a hill of beans.

Neither did the Court of Appeal.

But, as I was letting out a stream of consciousness post, it struck me as odd that the Johnsons left from the back of their house. Is there any reason for that? Not sure it has any relevance, just a question that crawled into my head.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You should apply to join the Liverpool Police... They could do with "brains" like yours!

How strange. The only two people that you insult are those that dispute what you say. Still can’t stand being disagreed with I see.

[RodCrosby]

It's a good point. If they'd left by the front, Wallace would have missed them.

I don't know their habits, but from my own experience it would be unusual to leave at that hour of night by the back unless there was someone to bolt the gate behind you. I know Mrs. Johnston had her aged father staying with them. I suppose he might have been the one to bolt it, unless the Johnstons had a proper key-lock affair on their back gate, which I guess, while very rare, is not impossible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who bolted the front door?

[Abby Normal]

This issue has been raised a few times, so probably worth exploring.

a) I seem to remember the front door was bolted from the inside,
so, regardless of the state of the lock, Wallace would not be able to enter through the front door. So, this inability to open the door is not
faked to attract a witness to find the body with him. Of course, if he
were the murderer, he may have bolted the door before he left to
ensure he couldn't get in but we are here dealing with whether
Wallace's behaviour was odd given the front door was locked against
him. It doesn't seem to be to me. He says he knocked and received no answer. If he knew she was dead he might say this but there would be no point in actually knocking. The Johnsons though state that they heard the knock, so we know he did knock.

b) the back door would not open and then would easily on a second attempt. Maybe the key was not properly inserted the first time, especially as he was a bit agitated (see below). Or maybe he was stalling for a witness to come along. Wallace had a limited time to find witnesses to find the body with him if that was his aim. He had no way of knowing that someone would present themselves at about that time. Especially coming out of the back of their house (why did the Johnsons leave from the back door and not the front?). Unless it is common not to leave from the front of the house in Liverpool at that time, he is in the wrong place to best attract a witness. The front of the house would have been better and more likely. I think this leads me to think it was his being anxious which led him to insert the key improperly the first time.

c) Wallace expressed his worry/anxiousness to the Johnsons when he met them. Much is made of this, as if it would be unreasonable for him to be anxious. I would argue that most people would be. He has just returned from a wild goose chase, the front door is locked and no-one answers his knocks. This is unusual and sufficiently odd, that he worries something has happened to Julia. If I were in that position, I too would be anxious and might very well express that to a neighbour or friend. I don't find this odd behaviour at all.

I find it a litttle odd hes having trouble getting in just at that time, but moreso i find it a tad too much coincidence that as soon as the johnstons appear bang hes in. See what i mean?

[harry]

No Rod I was not wrong.What the appeal court had to judge was did the evidence,circumstancial as it was,meet the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.That standard had not been affected by the 1907 rulings.At no time,and I stand to be corrected,did any authority state that Wallace did not ,and could not have killed his wife,but the final consideration was,that the circumstancial evidence,such as it was,was not strong enough proof to convict him.

Herlock,It was stated that Wallace had used the words,'My wife's and my mackintosh'.An ambiguoous statement i'll agree,as it might be constued that both used the same mackintosh.However I agree with you that she would probably have ,and use ,a more suitable womans garment.

Much has been said about the lack of bloodstains on Wallace,but as the police could only conduct a visual check of the outer garments that night,plus the exposed parts of his body,it means that the inner clothing and major part of his body was not checked.

[etenguy]

Who bolted the front door?

Hi Herlock

I think we can be reasonably sure it was not Julia - she was expecting Wallace home and to be using the door.

If you accept the above, then it must have been the murderer.

If you believe Wallace was the killer, then it might have been to throw suspicion onto someone other than him and also possibly would allow him the chance to get someone to discover the body with him.

If you believe someone else was the killer, then it would possibly have been to prevent being caught if Wallace came back too early. The killer would have time to escape through the back door when he (or she) heard Wallace trying to get in the front door.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,It was stated that Wallace had used the words,'My wife's and my mackintosh'.An ambiguoous statement i'll agree,as it might be constued that both used the same mackintosh.However I agree with you that she would probably have ,and use ,a more suitable womans garment.

Hello Harry,

I can’t recall where I read it, and I don’t have any books to hand, but I believe that Wallace said that he’d never seen his wife wearing a mackintosh. As they mostly went out together it might suggest that she didn’t actually own one. She would have had a coat though (obviously) which would have been on a peg near to the mackintosh so it’s difficult to see why she used Wallace’s coat. Unless Wallace himself used it of course.

[etenguy]

I find it a litttle odd hes having trouble getting in just at that time, but moreso i find it a tad too much coincidence that as soon as the johnstons appear bang hes in. See what i mean?

We can probably agree that since the front door was bolted from the inside, it is not at all surprising that Wallace had trouble getting in the front door.

The back door takes more explaining and we can only speculate. Any one of the following might explain the problems with the back door:

a) the lock itself was faulty and the initial trouble resulted which was cleared for a second attempt. The johnstons appearing was simply fortuitous.
b) he was waiting for a witness before opening the door.
c) he was worried/anxious and didn't fully insert the key the first time, the Johnstons then providing the calming effect from their supportive presence which helped him properly insert the key when he retried.

I am sure there are other options - whatever the reason, our best bet for trying to understand is not to consider it in isolation from the events of those two days.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I think we can be reasonably sure it was not Julia - she was expecting Wallace home and to be using the door.

If you accept the above, then it must have been the murderer.

If you believe Wallace was the killer, then it might have been to throw suspicion onto someone other than him and also possibly would allow him the chance to get someone to discover the body with him.

If you believe someone else was the killer, then it would possibly have been to prevent being caught if Wallace came back too early. The killer would have time to escape through the back door when he (or she) heard Wallace trying to get in the front door.

Hi Eten,

But if, as Rod suggests, the killer was an accomplice who had gotten into the house under the pretext of being Qualtrough, why would he have worried about Wallace coming back early? He would have entered not long after Wallace left and he would have known how far Wallace had to travel and approximately how long he’d be away. He wouldn’t have wanted to sit around in the Parlour for any length of time chatting with Julia.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

But if, as Rod suggests, the killer was an accomplice who had gotten into the house under the pretext of being Qualtrough, why would he have worried about Wallace coming back early? He would have entered not long after Wallace left and he would have known how far Wallace had to travel and approximately how long he’d be away. He wouldn’t have wanted to sit around in the Parlour for any length of time chatting with Julia.

Ah, well - if we accept Rod's theory, then the accomplice was expecting to be picked up by Parry around 8.30pm. If that is the case, then he would not have necessarily entered the house as soon as Wallace left, but perhaps at 7.30 - the time the meeting was agreed. If there was no original intent to kill Julia, but simply a robbery, he would have left the house after the theft and waited for Parry at their agreed meeting point. When he killed Julia, I think we can assume he had some blood on himself. That being the case he may have waited in the house until the last possible minute to avoid being seen with blood on him and locked the front door as a precaution. This is of course purely speculation.

[RodCrosby]

No Rod I was not wrong.What the appeal court had to judge was did the evidence,circumstancial as it was,meet the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.That standard had not been affected by the 1907 rulings.At no time,and I stand to be corrected,did any authority state that Wallace did not ,and could not have killed his wife,but the final consideration was,that the circumstancial evidence,such as it was,was not strong enough proof to convict him.

Sorry, harry, still wrong.

"The Court will quash a conviction founded on mere suspicion" [headnote]
R v Wallace (1932) 23 Cr. App. R. 32

mere suspicion...

Not even "weak evidence" or your alleged "circumstantial evidence"

Mere Suspicion

MERE...

SUSPICION...