Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, pretty much all of these issues are against Wallace and any accomplice (e.g. Gannon's theory) and some apply to solo Wallace as well. But I'd like to make some specific points:

1) I don't really tend to think they were so distant as they make out they were. Out of all the neighbors on the street, from what it appears, the Wallaces were closest with the Johnstons. Julia entrusted them with their family cat (a pet she was particularly attached to), and both Wallaces trusted them to look after their home in their abscence on vacation in preceding years (with Julia sending them postcards during their vacations as well).

[B) I genuinely don’t think that the Wallace’s and the Johnston’s were in any way ‘close.’ Neighbours in those days tended to look out for each other rather more than they do today and so, at a time when the Housebreaker was operating, it would have been natural to ask someone to keep an eye on the house and so who else but a next door neighbour. Mrs Johnston was probably the only one that Julia had any contact with at all so she would have been an obvious choice. A postcard would have been a curtesy. She still signed it J. Wallace and not Julia.[/B]

This point AND the other point is a potential riddle with any accomplice theory including Gannon's and has probably been discussed many times. Whatever they agree or disagree to do, they know Wallace has dirt on them. Wallace's punishment will be more severe (though he's dying anyway), but he'll instantly turn heel on them if they tell the police what has happened.

But the entire point of blackmail is that you pressure the person into doing something in order to keep their secret, which leads perfectly into...

The problem is that we don’t have a shred of evidence that Wallace had any dirt on Johnston. As far as we know he led a normal, working, family life. No record of criminality. Of course this could just mean that he was never caught but we do need positive evidence before advancing down this line.

2) This is the implication of Gannon's theory (two willing accomplices), not a point specifically against the Johnstons. But I think the possibility of Mr. Johnston being jailed (who was seemingly keeping the family afloat, and would have left them in ruins if he had been jailed, as well as his own future career opportunities) is a stronger motive to go along with such a plot. Threatening to tell people that Marsden is sleeping with an old lady for money is hardly as strong of a motive. I think THAT is more strong of a case where Wallace could then NOT kill his wife had Marsden refused.

If the dirt existed then possibly.

3) Even if Mr. Johnston was innocent, he still decided to suggest he stay outside while Wallace takes a look around, despite the implication from Wallace that there was some trouble in the home, so it's moot in my view. I'd also remind you that it was a point of contention for those against Wallace that he had told the Johnstons to wait outside. They fact-corrected this and said that it was actually Mr. Johnston who told Wallace to enter while they wait outside. One assuming Wallace's guilt might otherwise have asked why he didn't ask Mr. Johnston to follow him.

Fair point

But in any case Wallace entering the home alone (and never forget this is the story we're TOLD by the way, and there's actually multiple incidents of disagreements between all parties as to what happened surrounding particular events which I could list) allows his wife to be found in the parlor as the last room checked. Checking that room last is perhaps yet another overcompensation at feigning ignorance - like the Qualthorpe etc. nonsense.

As I think that the fact that Wallace walked past the Parlour is significant then from my own perspective he’d have had no reason to do so if Johnston was involved.

4) Always remember that implications are safer than lies. Although Wallace claimed he was sure an intruder was in the home, he also said that he heard no sounds coming from within the home. He simply gave implications of what may have happened, which allowed for an easy "out".

One practical example: On trial, under questioning, he retracted his "theory" that someone had still been in the home when he got back. If he'd said he heard someone in the house or someone said they saw shadowy figures running away, they'd be taken to the f*cking cleaners. Especially if someone had, at that time, been walking down one of the streets the non-existent man had ran onto. Instead he was able to say he had "given up on that theory".

But he was retracting an implication at his trial. What would have stopped Johnston checking the alley first (it would have taken a minute or two tops) if there was no one in the alley then he could have mentioned a shadowy figure in the dark. Or even that he heard the gate closing.

If you claim to have seen someone, you would also be expected to give a description of the person, his height, build, it allows for a lot more potential things to go wrong... Imagine how it would look, the investigators scouring for fingerprints of a man they'd most certainly seen running out the back door, and finding nothing but those belonging to Wallace and the Johnstons? Or if they mixed up details of their description of the mystery man or where he ran to etc? WAY riskier, and more potential for slipping on their story - which happened anyway between all three of them, but in less condemning ways. Imply things and you have a safety net.

A brief glimpse, in the dark, of a man in dark clothing. Mrs Johnston could have said that she didn’t see him but that she heardthe gate closing.

Saying they heard "thumps" at a certain time was enough to safely corroborate the idea by implication, and if it was exposed as impossible they could blame their father taking off his boots (which they said they thought it was) or some other ridiculousness.

5) The scene was specifically staged to resemble the burglary at 19 Wolverton Street. I think this coincidence is too much to accept, so it was probably done on purpose as a first layer of protection to mislead police from the motive of the crime and from Wallace.

I don’t think that we can assume that WWH. Some similarities might have existed but there are bound to be some.

6) Why would solo Wallace?

I think it was because he had Gordon Parry set up as the fall-guy in advance, he had a plot, a mystery caller, and in his head the "suspects" he could suddenly reveal as people who Julia would surely admit. Should the housebreaker theory fall flat (which it eventually did), then Julia's presence in the parlor would suggest an admitted guest. Again leading away from Wallace. Curiously he left out the Johnstons on the list of people Julia would admit, but went in hard on Gordon Parry.

ok. But if he had the Johnston’s on board they could have said that they heard a couple of loud bangs after Wallace had left. One of them could even have said that they thought they heard a raised woman’s voice after Wallace had left but they thought that it might just have been Julia calling her husband (who might have been upstairs at the time.)

7) Why would solo Wallace?

Also which lights were turned down and who had corroborated this? As far as I know, only the Johnstons and Wallace were on the scene at the time, and they are the ones we are trusting for their entire testimony of the events that unfolded from 8.45 and onwards. If the Johnstons were involved, any aspect of the story can be faked. If Mrs. Johnston was in on it as well as Mr. Johnston, then their entire testimony becomes unreliable.

True. We still have no real evidence that they were involved though.

---

I initially wasn't sure about Mrs. Johnston, I thought maybe Mr. Johnston did it hush-hush, as his testimony is the stranger of the two and he proveably lied in statements to the press about the events of that night (claiming Wallace forced the back door open for example). But there are a few things about her I found too weird as well:

1) Her and Wallace seemingly getting their wires crossed multiple times on who said "whatever have they used?"

At the risk of sounding like I’m being defensive we have to accept the fact that people do get their wires crossed. Especially in stressful situation. You’re absolutely right not to ignore them or brush them under the carpet but I think that we need to be cautious of getting into conspiracy theorist territory. I’m certainly not accusing of being a conspiracy theorist WWH but what they tend to do is dig out minor errors and invest it with a sinister meaning whilst ignoring the prosaic explanation.

2) Saying "you poor darling" rather than screaming or something. Not a typical reaction you'd have expected from a woman seeing her neighbor's brains and blood splattered all over the room. Even MacFall implied he was somewhat "affected" by the scene.

I agree. It appears a strange thing to say but people do have strange modes of speech. Wallace’s coolness is also strange. He looks at his wife’s body like he was analysing an experiment. Wallace defenders are happy to put this down to stoicism. It could simply have been cold-bloodedness.

3) But moreso something VERY peculiar I found, and I think you will agree... Mrs. Johnston stated that she first heard Mr. Wallace knocking on the back door in his usual way, and took no notice as it was just a normal thing... But that is likely bullsh*t and I can prove it. A knock on that back door should not be remotely natural because:

a. Wallace's own words show that he was in the habit of only ever returning by the front door after dark.

b. Wallace had his own keys, why would knocking be expected if it was him?

c. The yard door should be bolted, why would it be natural that someone would have been knocking on the back door? Least of all at around 9 PM at night?

Good point WWH. Do you think that she might not have been talking specifically about the backdoor? Or just that he was knocking the way he normally knocked on the front door (ie. no more loudly or frantically.)

There are some more Florence oddities actually, like her lie about having only ever been in the home 3 times, and only ever in the parlor (bullsh*t, the Johnstons had opened and closed the Wallaces curtains during their vacation absence).



---

And the reason I think the above also implicates Wallace himself, is because he did not call them out on any of this. He was apparently smart enough to "figure out" Parry had done it, but not see the obvious lies being told right in front of his face by his next door neighbors. Mr. Johnston never hearing Julias name, not once in a decade?

Very selective in their hearing are the Johnstons.

And had they had involvement, being able to "slip away unnoticed" is explained very simply.

---

I'd also like to suggest a possible motive:

I could take the easy way out to sound more "believable" by saying he was just sick of his wife etc. but I'm not convinced that's what happened (though I do think it's possible) and it would be dishonest if I said otherwise. I am thinking it really DID involve Amy Wallace. Here's a few reasons why:

1) Amy's visit to Julia. From Goodman's account it does not sound as though they were a pairing who would get on too well, was she really in the habit of dropping by to see Julia while Wallace was at work? Was she really in the habit of inviting Julia to events often?

[B] It’s something that we can’t really know. Julia might not have liked Amy visiting but Amy just did. Some people can’t even take hints that they’re not welcome. Amy might have taken Julia’s politeness as a sign that they were friends. Things like this do happen in families.[B]

I suggest the true reason of her alledged "visit" (if it even happened - because nobody as far as I know has corroborated this - except hilariously the Johnstons if anyone) was to "learn" from Julia that Wallace had been called at the chess club the previous night to go out on a business meeting to the Calderstones area.

As you can see, this is a pointer to Wallace's innocence, since people might ask "if he was planning to just brain her anyway, why would he have bothered telling her his fake story?" it adds credibility to the "tricked husband" idea.

I wonder if Wallace (and Julia for that matter) knew that Amy intended to call?

2) The allegations of Amy's BDSM and flagellation fetish and questionable actions in Malaya, paired with Wallace's very peculiar admission to police that a "dog lash with a whip" had been missing for 12 months, and the "sexually odd" comments of Gordon Parry. Even Goodman had referred to Amy as a "domineering" woman.

I have a natural aversion for these type of rumours I’m afraid. Sensational events attract sensational rumours. As I said in another post the ripper case is full of weird rumours.

3) The fact that Joseph was not even in the country for long stretches of time. Amy had sexual needs, Wallace was essentially a clone of Joseph making him a perfect stand in, and if the allegations are believed as explained above, shared the same odd fetish as her too.

Again, these are just rumours. I think that we’re on shaky ground if we give them any weight.

4) The fact Julia was 70 and most people argue that she WAS in fact incontinent, and Wallace was in his early 50s, a time when he should still feel some sexual desire.

True. Then again, some people have a very low sex drive. Wallace could have been one of those people. I’m not a medical person but I wonder if his health issues could have affected his sex drive?

5) I feel he may have actually cared for Julia, if the constable is to be believed that Wallace was most certainly crying (NOT dabbing his eyes from the cold), then I think it was probably a "necessity" or "revenge" killing. For example, either she found out something about Wallace she wasn't meant to know, or vice versa Wallace found out Julia was having an affair. Which seems less believable given her age.

Or it could have been Wallace contemplating the enormity of what he was preparing to do? Maybe his mind had wandered back to happier times?

---

These are my thoughts on this case as it stands currently. I believe it removes just about every single coincidence.

---

But FWIW, I haven't followed these leads as I've been focusing on other lines of investigation, but very early on someone named "Harris" as a suspect. Such a man lived at 79 Richmond Park, which had access into the same back entry as Wallace's home. Perhaps it was him being referenced rather than Gordon Parry?

I would also urge people to research the "man in a dark overcoat with an umbrella" reported as having taken a cab at some time around 7 to Sefton Park, in a very agitated manner, asking the driver "you won't kill me, will you?". I have not been able to find more information on this. He was apparently 5'11, well-mannered and well-spoken, with hair that had just started turning grey, with rimmed glasses and a slight moustache.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Most working, to middle class homes in the UK ,up untill the early '70s, the housewife typically would shop each day for the evening meal . The Wallace's most likely wouldn't possess a refrigerator, and would settle for a stone or concrete slab in a little pantry to keep foodstuffs cool . Julia would undoubtedly have shopped at least every other day .

I’m also unsure whether Sarah Draper might have done some shopping too? Especially during Julia’s frequent periods of illness.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Brotherjake ,welcome, If you have read and digested all 174 pages of this thread, you are already reasonably well read. And should be upgraded to 'Constable' from Cadet. LoL

There’s also the 181 pages of the other Wallace thread too.

[moste]

Most working, to middle class homes in the UK ,up untill the early '70s, the housewife typically would shop each day for the evening meal . The Wallace's most likely wouldn't possess a refrigerator, and would settle for a stone or concrete slab in a little pantry to keep foodstuffs cool . Julia would undoubtedly have shopped at least every other day .

[moste]

Brotherjake ,welcome, If you have read and digested all 174 pages of this thread, you are already reasonably well read. And should be upgraded to 'Constable' from Cadet. LoL

[moste]

The tragedy has been so uncommon, so complete and of such personal importance to so many people, that we are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture, and hypothesis. The difficulty is to detach the framework of fact -- of absolute undeniable fact -- from the embellishments of theorists and reporters." 'Sherlock Holmes'

[moste]

Re reading the career of Chief superintendent Herbert Balmer. Joined the Liverpool police force in 1926. And transfered to the CID in 1930. An understanding of this individuals mindset on crime , with all of his evil ulterior motives, leads me to say, 'if Balmer had even an outside involvement in the Wallace case, there's a strong chance Wallace was innocent.' In fact I would go as far as to say that if the three judges on the appeal panel got wind that Balmer was involved in any way with all of his corruptible methods , that fact alone would set Wallace free.

[moste]

Quote :Julia barely left the home right? Could they keep watch over the home 24/7 hoping Julia might step foot into the outside world? She didn't go shopping then?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi all, I've recently discovered this thread and have read through all 173 pages with great interest. This case has long fascinated and frustrated me with possible clues, red herrings and coincidences at every turn. I think the discussions on here have thrown up some valuable new theories.
WWH - re; your last post, which contained the quotation from Wallace's diary, on reading it, I wondered if it was,
a) punctuated differently
b) the word 'properly' was actually 'property'
c) the word 'study' refers to the parlour/front room
if we do that, does it make more sense?
"Work out some definite scheme of study of property, planned and rigorously adhered to, each particular difficulty consistently tackled and overcome."

I think it still makes no sense. Unless Wallace was high on opium when he wrote that, I think it is intentionally cryptic and weird, and may signal the beginnings of his plan as having started around that time.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Interesting stuff WWH,

Coincidentally I decided last night to consider and list any doubts that I have when considering the Johnston’s involvement.

1. Wallace would have had very limited contact with the Johnston’s. Even less than Julia as he was out at work during the day so it’s difficult to see how a) he would have had time to build up any kind of level of confidence that he could even broach the subject let alone have confidence that Johnston would be open to the idea. After all, what if Johnston had said “no?’ Wallace couldn’t then have gone on to kill Julia. And b) How and where could they have discussed the plan. This would have been planned over a period of time requiring quite a few meetings. Wallace’s life was -work-home with Julia-occasional visits to the chess club.

2. I’d suggest that someone planning a murder would be lucky to find one accomplice willing to take on the huge risks involved and so how less likely would it be to find an accomplice who’s wife was willing to be in on it too?

3. Why didn’t Mr Johnston play the concerned neighbour and witness by entering the house with William? Especially as it appears that he was trying to give the impression that an intruder was still inside?

4. Why didn’t the Johnston’s simply say that as soon as they left their house they saw a shadowy figure run from the Wallace’s backdoor and leave by the gate seconds before Wallace returned from trying the front door?

5. If the Johnston’s were involved why didn’t they completely ransack the house to make it seriously look like a burglary as they would have known, if part of the plan, that they had limitless time.

6. If Johnston was the killer why would he have taken Julia into the Parlour?

7. If Johnston was the killer why would he have turned off the lights?

Ill read your scenario again later today.

Well, pretty much all of these issues are against Wallace and any accomplice (e.g. Gannon's theory) and some apply to solo Wallace as well. But I'd like to make some specific points:

1) I don't really tend to think they were so distant as they make out they were. Out of all the neighbors on the street, from what it appears, the Wallaces were closest with the Johnstons. Julia entrusted them with their family cat (a pet she was particularly attached to), and both Wallaces trusted them to look after their home in their abscence on vacation in preceding years (with Julia sending them postcards during their vacations as well).

This point AND the other point is a potential riddle with any accomplice theory including Gannon's and has probably been discussed many times. Whatever they agree or disagree to do, they know Wallace has dirt on them. Wallace's punishment will be more severe (though he's dying anyway), but he'll instantly turn heel on them if they tell the police what has happened.

But the entire point of blackmail is that you pressure the person into doing something in order to keep their secret, which leads perfectly into...

2) This is the implication of Gannon's theory (two willing accomplices), not a point specifically against the Johnstons. But I think the possibility of Mr. Johnston being jailed (who was seemingly keeping the family afloat, and would have left them in ruins if he had been jailed, as well as his own future career opportunities) is a stronger motive to go along with such a plot. Threatening to tell people that Marsden is sleeping with an old lady for money is hardly as strong of a motive. I think THAT is more strong of a case where Wallace could then NOT kill his wife had Marsden refused.

3) Even if Mr. Johnston was innocent, he still decided to suggest he stay outside while Wallace takes a look around, despite the implication from Wallace that there was some trouble in the home, so it's moot in my view. I'd also remind you that it was a point of contention for those against Wallace that he had told the Johnstons to wait outside. They fact-corrected this and said that it was actually Mr. Johnston who told Wallace to enter while they wait outside. One assuming Wallace's guilt might otherwise have asked why he didn't ask Mr. Johnston to follow him.

But in any case Wallace entering the home alone (and never forget this is the story we're TOLD by the way, and there's actually multiple incidents of disagreements between all parties as to what happened surrounding particular events which I could list) allows his wife to be found in the parlor as the last room checked. Checking that room last is perhaps yet another overcompensation at feigning ignorance - like the Qualthorpe etc. nonsense.

4) Always remember that implications are safer than lies. Although Wallace claimed he was sure an intruder was in the home, he also said that he heard no sounds coming from within the home. He simply gave implications of what may have happened, which allowed for an easy "out".

One practical example: On trial, under questioning, he retracted his "theory" that someone had still been in the home when he got back. If he'd said he heard someone in the house or someone said they saw shadowy figures running away, they'd be taken to the f*cking cleaners. Especially if someone had, at that time, been walking down one of the streets the non-existent man had ran onto. Instead he was able to say he had "given up on that theory".

If you claim to have seen someone, you would also be expected to give a description of the person, his height, build, it allows for a lot more potential things to go wrong... Imagine how it would look, the investigators scouring for fingerprints of a man they'd most certainly seen running out the back door, and finding nothing but those belonging to Wallace and the Johnstons? Or if they mixed up details of their description of the mystery man or where he ran to etc? WAY riskier, and more potential for slipping on their story - which happened anyway between all three of them, but in less condemning ways. Imply things and you have a safety net.

Saying they heard "thumps" at a certain time was enough to safely corroborate the idea by implication, and if it was exposed as impossible they could blame their father taking off his boots (which they said they thought it was) or some other ridiculousness.

5) The scene was specifically staged to resemble the burglary at 19 Wolverton Street. I think this coincidence is too much to accept, so it was probably done on purpose as a first layer of protection to mislead police from the motive of the crime and from Wallace.

6) Why would solo Wallace?

I think it was because he had Gordon Parry set up as the fall-guy in advance, he had a plot, a mystery caller, and in his head the "suspects" he could suddenly reveal as people who Julia would surely admit. Should the housebreaker theory fall flat (which it eventually did), then Julia's presence in the parlor would suggest an admitted guest. Again leading away from Wallace. Curiously he left out the Johnstons on the list of people Julia would admit, but went in hard on Gordon Parry.

7) Why would solo Wallace?

Also which lights were turned down and who had corroborated this? As far as I know, only the Johnstons and Wallace were on the scene at the time, and they are the ones we are trusting for their entire testimony of the events that unfolded from 8.45 and onwards. If the Johnstons were involved, any aspect of the story can be faked. If Mrs. Johnston was in on it as well as Mr. Johnston, then their entire testimony becomes unreliable.

---

I initially wasn't sure about Mrs. Johnston, I thought maybe Mr. Johnston did it hush-hush, as his testimony is the stranger of the two and he proveably lied in statements to the press about the events of that night (claiming Wallace forced the back door open for example). But there are a few things about her I found too weird as well:

1) Her and Wallace seemingly getting their wires crossed multiple times on who said "whatever have they used?"

2) Saying "you poor darling" rather than screaming or something. Not a typical reaction you'd have expected from a woman seeing her neighbor's brains and blood splattered all over the room. Even MacFall implied he was somewhat "affected" by the scene.

3) But moreso something VERY peculiar I found, and I think you will agree... Mrs. Johnston stated that she first heard Mr. Wallace knocking on the back door in his usual way, and took no notice as it was just a normal thing... But that is likely bullsh*t and I can prove it. A knock on that back door should not be remotely natural because:

a. Wallace's own words show that he was in the habit of only ever returning by the front door after dark.

b. Wallace had his own keys, why would knocking be expected if it was him?

c. The yard door should be bolted, why would it be natural that someone would have been knocking on the back door? Least of all at around 9 PM at night?

There are some more Florence oddities actually, like her lie about having only ever been in the home 3 times, and only ever in the parlor (bullsh*t, the Johnstons had opened and closed the Wallaces curtains during their vacation absence).

---

And the reason I think the above also implicates Wallace himself, is because he did not call them out on any of this. He was apparently smart enough to "figure out" Parry had done it, but not see the obvious lies being told right in front of his face by his next door neighbors. Mr. Johnston never hearing Julias name, not once in a decade?

Very selective in their hearing are the Johnstons.

And had they had involvement, being able to "slip away unnoticed" is explained very simply.

---

I'd also like to suggest a possible motive:

I could take the easy way out to sound more "believable" by saying he was just sick of his wife etc. but I'm not convinced that's what happened (though I do think it's possible) and it would be dishonest if I said otherwise. I am thinking it really DID involve Amy Wallace. Here's a few reasons why:

1) Amy's visit to Julia. From Goodman's account it does not sound as though they were a pairing who would get on too well, was she really in the habit of dropping by to see Julia while Wallace was at work? Was she really in the habit of inviting Julia to events often?

I suggest the true reason of her alledged "visit" (if it even happened - because nobody as far as I know has corroborated this - except hilariously the Johnstons if anyone) was to "learn" from Julia that Wallace had been called at the chess club the previous night to go out on a business meeting to the Calderstones area.

As you can see, this is a pointer to Wallace's innocence, since people might ask "if he was planning to just brain her anyway, why would he have bothered telling her his fake story?" it adds credibility to the "tricked husband" idea.

2) The allegations of Amy's BDSM and flagellation fetish and questionable actions in Malaya, paired with Wallace's very peculiar admission to police that a "dog lash with a whip" had been missing for 12 months, and the "sexually odd" comments of Gordon Parry. Even Goodman had referred to Amy as a "domineering" woman.

3) The fact that Joseph was not even in the country for long stretches of time. Amy had sexual needs, Wallace was essentially a clone of Joseph making him a perfect stand in, and if the allegations are believed as explained above, shared the same odd fetish as her too.

4) The fact Julia was 70 and most people argue that she WAS in fact incontinent, and Wallace was in his early 50s, a time when he should still feel some sexual desire.

5) I feel he may have actually cared for Julia, if the constable is to be believed that Wallace was most certainly crying (NOT dabbing his eyes from the cold), then I think it was probably a "necessity" or "revenge" killing. For example, either she found out something about Wallace she wasn't meant to know, or vice versa Wallace found out Julia was having an affair. Which seems less believable given her age.

---

These are my thoughts on this case as it stands currently. I believe it removes just about every single coincidence.

---

But FWIW, I haven't followed these leads as I've been focusing on other lines of investigation, but very early on someone named "Harris" as a suspect. Such a man lived at 79 Richmond Park, which had access into the same back entry as Wallace's home. Perhaps it was him being referenced rather than Gordon Parry?

I would also urge people to research the "man in a dark overcoat with an umbrella" reported as having taken a cab at some time around 7 to Sefton Park, in a very agitated manner, asking the driver "you won't kill me, will you?". I have not been able to find more information on this. He was apparently 5'11, well-mannered and well-spoken, with hair that had just started turning grey, with rimmed glasses and a slight moustache.

[brotherjake]

Yes indeed Herlock, one of my favourite songs from my favourite band and thank you for the welcome.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Welcome to the thread brotherjake by the way.

Btw is your name anything to do with the song by Free - My Brother Jake?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Julia barely left the home right? Could they keep watch over the home 24/7 hoping Julia might step foot into the outside world?

But anyway remember a couple of things... First of all, the suggestion from the apparent confession is that the cat was meant to be used in some way... The detail of the cat missing and returning is just another coincidence it seems? I'm not so sure. There are too many coincidences or sheer luck involved in this case as it stands, with any of the current suggestions I've read.

Anyway I will put my proposition forward...

---

I believe Wallace may have had a part in this. I think Mr. Johnston, hard up for cash having to support a large household with probably at least three occupants, (Norah, Florence, and Arthur) being out of work, had turned to theft to make ends meet. I think he committed the burglary at 19 Wolverton Street using his key, which he was aware opened multiple doors. If the Johnstons can hear so much of the Wallace household through their walls, then we can surmise the same in return. Who is in a better position than Wallace to know that Mr. Johnston had committed that burglary if he had indeed done so? Especially having the knowledge that Johnston had such a key and their living arrangements, he may have put 2 + 2 together, even maybe caught him in the act.

After this, I propose he may have blackmailed Mr. Johnston to take part in some way. I am not sure as to what degree. This is a stronger blackmail case than the gigolo idea, with 70 year old Julia. Didn't the Johnstons hear any of her kinky encounters while Wallace was away at work?

I am also not sure of Parry's involvement. It is possible that Wallace tricked him into making the call under a false pretense IF the caller was indeed him (only really implied by the false alibi), like saying that he was going to pull off an insurance scam or something to that effect. I have no doubt that Parry would refuse to take part in a murder plot unless someone had some SERIOUS sh*t against him. Look at Parry's behavior in general. I think you will see he is the type to try and run away or make excuses and flee if discovered. I suppose that is why it is suggested that Parry called while another actually went into the home to burgle it, in an innocent Wallace scenario...

If Parry was used as the caller, then in the process, Wallace had established a perfect scapegoat to pin it on. Parry already had a shady past and Wallace knew he could not possibly have an alibi for the phone call if he'd made it, as well as knowing it could be proven Parry could see the chess match schedule. Parry's word would be unreliable if he tried to say it was all Wallace's idea. There would be no evidence to suggest this.

Remember also that it would be multiple words against one. The Johnstons were there "coincidentally" about to randomly visit a relative at 9 PM at night, to back up his discovery and door knock pantomime, and to state they heard two thuds at around 8.25 PM from the direction of the Wallace's parlor. They were also able to state that they heard everything going on in that home, but NEVER once heard a quarrel in their decade as neighbors. This sounds astonishing, even in the most perfect of couples... Amy Wallace had also coincidentally dropped by, and allegedly learned that Julia had been told Wallace had received a phone call at the chess club for an important business trip that evening with a man he did not know.

Wallace's quote of "her mackintosh ; and my mackintosh" strikes me as peculiar. He mentioned it in his statement to Munro without trying to back out of it like he did about Julia following him down the entry (etc), so there may have been an initial purpose to it. If he had commited the act himself, how could he make that slip? Was it on purpose to make himself seem clueless ("A. M. Qualthorpe" and "Menlove Avenue East" tier "mistakes" to make people see him as a dithering old man)?

The Johnstons easily hear Wallace knock at the doors etc, but are eerily deaf and dumb to cupboard doors being pulled off and any sort of commotion in the home. This is why the current iteration of Rod's theory does not work. Not only were the Johnstons supposedly able to hear the parlor from the living kitchen (e.g. in the case of Amy's visits), they ALSO had Arthur in the parlor which literally bordered theirs. ANY kind of commotion should have been heard, which very strongly suggests she was hit before she had time to react (either vocally or physically). Also the silence practically PROVES that the cupboard door was removed delicately, or in advance, both which point away from a burglar...

NOBODY would not hear a cupboard door crashing to the floor... Unless they lied, of course... Though any SERIOUS commotion (like that or loud shrieking etc.) should have been heard by other neighbors too. So we can safely assume such behavior was absent. We can also determine from that, combined with the lack of defensive wounds upon Julia, that the attack was quick, ferocious, and unexpected. She was not in a defensive mode, she was not expecting that she was in any type of danger, everything about the crime scene supports this.

Recall the INITIAL suggestion that Wallace was going for: That there was an attacker still inside the home when he arrived, which would be corroborated by the timing of the thuds heard by the Johnstons, and his gentle knocking at each of the doors (something no other neighbor saw or heard, by the way, even though the door at 27 is adjacent to the door of 29). How the Johnstons could hear him at both the front and back doors knocking "gently" on opposite ends of the home, I do not know, unless they are "combining" testimonies from members of the household.

Having someone else make the call (e.g. Parry), Wallace is fully aware that Beattie will confirm to the police/court that it was NOT his voice. He can be CERTAIN of that, and thus feels he has a pretty large safety net in place that backs him up as the poor, tricked husband, fooled by an elusive mystery caller.

The cash box is clean, the handles are clean, the drains are unused (ambiguous on this, not sure if the cops actually tested all the drains, but Antony is missing so I don't know). This implies gloves were used - either AFTER Julia was attacked (to cover the bloodied hands - heavily implying a planned attack rather than burglary), or BEFORE, which should mean the presence of fingerprints on items around the home such as the cash box. It could also mean that there were two people in the home, and the second person had touched everything while the first had hit Julia, and took care to leave the home without laying their bloodied hands on any handles etc.

But the only discernable fingerprints in the home (aside from investigators) are of Wallace and the Johnstons. If the Johnstons had any involvement, then this chance encounter works out perfectly for them, to excuse any fingerprints belonging to them which may have been left at the scene. The other option is that handles etc. were purposefully wiped clean of blood. For a solo Wallace, his only option would be to use gloves to kill Julia, incinerate them, and proceed from there, since he could not put them in his pockets or take them out with him unless they were sealed. Same for a hat which would have had to have been used, as visible blood in hair cannot be simply wiped away by a wet rag (which would then also have to be incinerated) in a couple of minutes... The weapon, if he acted solo, would also have had to have been wrapped (e.g. in newspaper) and this too would have been burned, and the weapon kept discreetly upon Wallace during his journey, and disposed of during his trip around the Gardens. The mackintosh and Julia's skirt were also partly burnt, Julia's body moved (her legs apparently chucked to the opposite side of the room????), and the fire upon the skirt and mackintosh possibly put out (or just left to dwindle out). All of this occurred in a window of around 12 minutes for a solo Wallace.

Mrs. Johnston and Wallace seemed to be unable to decide on which of them had uttered "whatever have they used", seeing as there are conflicting reports in papers and books on the case/trial. Mr. Johnston also evidently couldn't decide whether Wallace had "came to him at about quarter to nine" and "forced the back door open" as per his press statement, or "opened the door in the usual way, with no violence".

All staging would have been performed in advance, and most importantly, it is staged to be practically identical to the scene at 19 Wolverton Street, which is yet another added layer of protection that should have fooled police into chasing the Anfield housebreaker, which they initially did... Curiously, after this murder, all housebreakings in the area quickly ceased. The Johnstons had moved home the very next day. Something they had been "planning in advance". Yet another terrific coincidence. Apparently solo Wallace didn't know this or he would surely have planned the attack for Wednesday.

---

Diary entry from January 4th:



It is almost complete gibberish, like some line from a David Lynch movie. Does anyone believe this is really about learning the fiddle? Why is it written so cryptically? If this was around the time his plan was hatched, we can ascertain for definite that the later entries are most definitely fraudulent and placed with the purpose of fooling the police into buying into the "perfect marriage" (and possibly even some of the preceeding ones):

The entries about the romantic evening in Stanley Park, and his "horror" at Julia's late arrival home are on the 7th and 15th respectively, after the strange entry. What cruel fate that Julia should be killed less than a week after his night of worry about her possible death at the hands of a car accident! What a charmed and doting existence these two had clearly led.

---

"Well we won Sonny, didn't we?"

---

Interesting stuff WWH,

Coincidentally I decided last night to consider and list any doubts that I have when considering the Johnston’s involvement.

1. Wallace would have had very limited contact with the Johnston’s. Even less than Julia as he was out at work during the day so it’s difficult to see how a) he would have had time to build up any kind of level of confidence that he could even broach the subject let alone have confidence that Johnston would be open to the idea. After all, what if Johnston had said “no?’ Wallace couldn’t then have gone on to kill Julia. And b) How and where could they have discussed the plan. This would have been planned over a period of time requiring quite a few meetings. Wallace’s life was -work-home with Julia-occasional visits to the chess club.

2. I’d suggest that someone planning a murder would be lucky to find one accomplice willing to take on the huge risks involved and so how less likely would it be to find an accomplice who’s wife was willing to be in on it too?

3. Why didn’t Mr Johnston play the concerned neighbour and witness by entering the house with William? Especially as it appears that he was trying to give the impression that an intruder was still inside?

4. Why didn’t the Johnston’s simply say that as soon as they left their house they saw a shadowy figure run from the Wallace’s backdoor and leave by the gate seconds before Wallace returned from trying the front door?

5. If the Johnston’s were involved why didn’t they completely ransack the house to make it seriously look like a burglary as they would have known, if part of the plan, that they had limitless time.

6. If Johnston was the killer why would he have taken Julia into the Parlour?

7. If Johnston was the killer why would he have turned off the lights?

Ill read your scenario again later today.

[brotherjake]

Hi all, I've recently discovered this thread and have read through all 173 pages with great interest. This case has long fascinated and frustrated me with possible clues, red herrings and coincidences at every turn. I think the discussions on here have thrown up some valuable new theories.
WWH - re; your last post, which contained the quotation from Wallace's diary, on reading it, I wondered if it was,
a) punctuated differently
b) the word 'properly' was actually 'property'
c) the word 'study' refers to the parlour/front room
if we do that, does it make more sense?
"Work out some definite scheme of study of property, planned and rigorously adhered to, each particular difficulty consistently tackled and overcome."

[WallaceWackedHer]

Julia barely left the home right? Could they keep watch over the home 24/7 hoping Julia might step foot into the outside world?

But anyway remember a couple of things... First of all, the suggestion from the apparent confession is that the cat was meant to be used in some way... The detail of the cat missing and returning is just another coincidence it seems? I'm not so sure. There are too many coincidences or sheer luck involved in this case as it stands, with any of the current suggestions I've read.

Anyway I will put my proposition forward...

---

I believe Wallace may have had a part in this. I think Mr. Johnston, hard up for cash having to support a large household with probably at least three occupants, (Norah, Florence, and Arthur) being out of work, had turned to theft to make ends meet. I think he committed the burglary at 19 Wolverton Street using his key, which he was aware opened multiple doors. If the Johnstons can hear so much of the Wallace household through their walls, then we can surmise the same in return. Who is in a better position than Wallace to know that Mr. Johnston had committed that burglary if he had indeed done so? Especially having the knowledge that Johnston had such a key and their living arrangements, he may have put 2 + 2 together, even maybe caught him in the act.

After this, I propose he may have blackmailed Mr. Johnston to take part in some way. I am not sure as to what degree. This is a stronger blackmail case than the gigolo idea, with 70 year old Julia. Didn't the Johnstons hear any of her kinky encounters while Wallace was away at work?

I am also not sure of Parry's involvement. It is possible that Wallace tricked him into making the call under a false pretense IF the caller was indeed him (only really implied by the false alibi), like saying that he was going to pull off an insurance scam or something to that effect. I have no doubt that Parry would refuse to take part in a murder plot unless someone had some SERIOUS sh*t against him. Look at Parry's behavior in general. I think you will see he is the type to try and run away or make excuses and flee if discovered. I suppose that is why it is suggested that Parry called while another actually went into the home to burgle it, in an innocent Wallace scenario...

If Parry was used as the caller, then in the process, Wallace had established a perfect scapegoat to pin it on. Parry already had a shady past and Wallace knew he could not possibly have an alibi for the phone call if he'd made it, as well as knowing it could be proven Parry could see the chess match schedule. Parry's word would be unreliable if he tried to say it was all Wallace's idea. There would be no evidence to suggest this.

Remember also that it would be multiple words against one. The Johnstons were there "coincidentally" about to randomly visit a relative at 9 PM at night, to back up his discovery and door knock pantomime, and to state they heard two thuds at around 8.25 PM from the direction of the Wallace's parlor. They were also able to state that they heard everything going on in that home, but NEVER once heard a quarrel in their decade as neighbors. This sounds astonishing, even in the most perfect of couples... Amy Wallace had also coincidentally dropped by, and allegedly learned that Julia had been told Wallace had received a phone call at the chess club for an important business trip that evening with a man he did not know.

Wallace's quote of "her mackintosh ; and my mackintosh" strikes me as peculiar. He mentioned it in his statement to Munro without trying to back out of it like he did about Julia following him down the entry (etc), so there may have been an initial purpose to it. If he had commited the act himself, how could he make that slip? Was it on purpose to make himself seem clueless ("A. M. Qualthorpe" and "Menlove Avenue East" tier "mistakes" to make people see him as a dithering old man)?

The Johnstons easily hear Wallace knock at the doors etc, but are eerily deaf and dumb to cupboard doors being pulled off and any sort of commotion in the home. This is why the current iteration of Rod's theory does not work. Not only were the Johnstons supposedly able to hear the parlor from the living kitchen (e.g. in the case of Amy's visits), they ALSO had Arthur in the parlor which literally bordered theirs. ANY kind of commotion should have been heard, which very strongly suggests she was hit before she had time to react (either vocally or physically). Also the silence practically PROVES that the cupboard door was removed delicately, or in advance, both which point away from a burglar...

NOBODY would not hear a cupboard door crashing to the floor... Unless they lied, of course... Though any SERIOUS commotion (like that or loud shrieking etc.) should have been heard by other neighbors too. So we can safely assume such behavior was absent. We can also determine from that, combined with the lack of defensive wounds upon Julia, that the attack was quick, ferocious, and unexpected. She was not in a defensive mode, she was not expecting that she was in any type of danger, everything about the crime scene supports this.

Recall the INITIAL suggestion that Wallace was going for: That there was an attacker still inside the home when he arrived, which would be corroborated by the timing of the thuds heard by the Johnstons, and his gentle knocking at each of the doors (something no other neighbor saw or heard, by the way, even though the door at 27 is adjacent to the door of 29). How the Johnstons could hear him at both the front and back doors knocking "gently" on opposite ends of the home, I do not know, unless they are "combining" testimonies from members of the household.

Having someone else make the call (e.g. Parry), Wallace is fully aware that Beattie will confirm to the police/court that it was NOT his voice. He can be CERTAIN of that, and thus feels he has a pretty large safety net in place that backs him up as the poor, tricked husband, fooled by an elusive mystery caller.

The cash box is clean, the handles are clean, the drains are unused (ambiguous on this, not sure if the cops actually tested all the drains, but Antony is missing so I don't know). This implies gloves were used - either AFTER Julia was attacked (to cover the bloodied hands - heavily implying a planned attack rather than burglary), or BEFORE, which should mean the presence of fingerprints on items around the home such as the cash box. It could also mean that there were two people in the home, and the second person had touched everything while the first had hit Julia, and took care to leave the home without laying their bloodied hands on any handles etc.

But the only discernable fingerprints in the home (aside from investigators) are of Wallace and the Johnstons. If the Johnstons had any involvement, then this chance encounter works out perfectly for them, to excuse any fingerprints belonging to them which may have been left at the scene. The other option is that handles etc. were purposefully wiped clean of blood. For a solo Wallace, his only option would be to use gloves to kill Julia, incinerate them, and proceed from there, since he could not put them in his pockets or take them out with him unless they were sealed. Same for a hat which would have had to have been used, as visible blood in hair cannot be simply wiped away by a wet rag (which would then also have to be incinerated) in a couple of minutes... The weapon, if he acted solo, would also have had to have been wrapped (e.g. in newspaper) and this too would have been burned, and the weapon kept discreetly upon Wallace during his journey, and disposed of during his trip around the Gardens. The mackintosh and Julia's skirt were also partly burnt, Julia's body moved (her legs apparently chucked to the opposite side of the room????), and the fire upon the skirt and mackintosh possibly put out (or just left to dwindle out). All of this occurred in a window of around 12 minutes for a solo Wallace.

Mrs. Johnston and Wallace seemed to be unable to decide on which of them had uttered "whatever have they used", seeing as there are conflicting reports in papers and books on the case/trial. Mr. Johnston also evidently couldn't decide whether Wallace had "came to him at about quarter to nine" and "forced the back door open" as per his press statement, or "opened the door in the usual way, with no violence".

All staging would have been performed in advance, and most importantly, it is staged to be practically identical to the scene at 19 Wolverton Street, which is yet another added layer of protection that should have fooled police into chasing the Anfield housebreaker, which they initially did... Curiously, after this murder, all housebreakings in the area quickly ceased. The Johnstons had moved home the very next day. Something they had been "planning in advance". Yet another terrific coincidence. Apparently solo Wallace didn't know this or he would surely have planned the attack for Wednesday.

---

Diary entry from January 4th:

"Work out some definite scheme of study of properly planned and rigorously adhered to each particular difficulty consistently tackled and overcome."

It is almost complete gibberish, like some line from a David Lynch movie. Does anyone believe this is really about learning the fiddle? Why is it written so cryptically? If this was around the time his plan was hatched, we can ascertain for definite that the later entries are most definitely fraudulent and placed with the purpose of fooling the police into buying into the "perfect marriage" (and possibly even some of the preceeding ones):

The entries about the romantic evening in Stanley Park, and his "horror" at Julia's late arrival home are on the 7th and 15th respectively, after the strange entry. What cruel fate that Julia should be killed less than a week after his night of worry about her possible death at the hands of a car accident! What a charmed and doting existence these two had clearly led.

---

"Well we won Sonny, didn't we?"

---