Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[harry]

No need to post the large letters Rob.Nothing wrong with my eyesight.No,it was not mere suspicion,it was circumstantial evidence,strong enough to first convince the authorities there was a case to proceed with,then to pass the Prima Facia test,and finally to convince a jury of twelve persons to arrive at a guilty verdict.Parry on the other hand, didn't even arrive at first base.

[RodCrosby]

I'll take the official record, and the law of England as it stood in 1931, thanks...

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

"Suffice it to say that we are not concerned here with suspicion, however grave, or with theories, however ingenious.

Section 4 of the Criminal Appeal Act of 1907 provides that the Court of Criminal Appeal shall allow the appeal if they think that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it cannot be supported having regard to the evidence....and therefore it is our duty to take the course indicated by the section of the statute to which I have referred. The result is that this appeal will be allowed and this conviction quashed."
Lord Hewart CJ, R v Wallace (1932) 23 Cr. App. R. 32

"It is not sufficient to show merely that the case against the appellant was a very weak one...If there was evidence to support the conviction, the appeal will be dismissed" (Archbold, 1922, ed. p. 377).

"Legally, it is academic. There was no evidence against him."
Gerald Abrahams, barrister-at-law, 1954

[Herlock Sholmes]

. 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.

Hi Eten,

If Wallace locked the door before he left then his attempt to gain entry could still have been play acting. No one saw him closely enough to see how much effort he was putting in to opening the door.

Wallace might even have conceived of the idea that a bolted door might point toward an intruder whilst he was out. He then pretends to try and get in by the front door. When he finally enters the house he’s alone. He could easily have bolted the door then.

Wallace was trying to give the impression that there was an intruder still in the house. He mentioned this to the police but then denied saying it. If I recall correctly (and I believe that I do Rod claimed that Inspector Gold made this up or was in error.) But this is from the trial:

Counsel: Do you remember Inspector Gold asking you if you thought anyone was in the house when you got back, and do you remember your answer?

Wallace: No, I do not.

Counsel: Do you still think that, when you returned, someone was in the house?

Wallace: No, I do not.

Counsel: You have given that theory up?

Wallace: Yes.

Counsel: Did you ever believe it?

Wallace: I might have done at the moment.

“At the moment” could only mean at the time of the crime as he’s clearly saying that he no longer believes it. So we have Wallace trying to distance himself from the truth that he ‘believed’ that someone was in the house when he got home.

Leading on from this we might ask why, if he felt there was an intruder in the house, did he not ask Mr Johnston to accompany him inside? Wallace hardly strikes us as the Steven Seagal type. Maybe he didn’t want Johnston to see him bolt the door? Of course if Johnston had insisted on coming in with him then the door would have remained unbolted Wallace would have lost nothing.

[RodCrosby]

If I recall correctly (and I believe that I do Rod claimed that Inspector Gold made this up or was in error.)

By their disinformation and misrepresentation shall ye know them...

I said, in relation to an entirely different point, that Inspector Gold was drunk.

Source: "Gold was drunk when he arrived at Wolverton Street."
Harry Bailey Jnr. (son of Detective Sergeant Bailey) [Wilkes, 1985, p245]

I leave the viewer to place whatever credence they want on Gold's evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

By their disinformation and misrepresentation shall ye know them...

I said, in relation to an entirely different point, that Inspector Gold was drunk.

Source: "Gold was drunk when he arrived at Wolverton Street."
Harry Bailey Jnr. (son of Detective Sergeant Bailey) [Wilkes, 1985, p245]

I leave the viewer to place whatever credence they want on Gold's evidence.

We can all see who is doing the disinforming and misrepresenting here and it’s certainly not me.

You claimed that Gold was drunk and therefore the suggestion that Wallace claimed to have believed that there was someone in the house wasn’t true. I’ve just posted an exerpt from the trial transcript which proves categorically that Wallace did indeed say that he had ‘at the moment’ believed that there was someone in the house. So we have it from Wallace’s own lips.

It can’t get much plainer than that. Any attempt to claim it to be untrue is misinterpretation due to an obsession with seeing everything in the light of an innocent Wallace. I’d suggest that you remove the ‘St William’ goggles.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In the attempt to bend over backwards to see everything that Wallace did in the light of his innocence I’ll add some more deeply suspicious behaviour.

At the end of his Menlove Garden East trek Wallace said that he began to be concerned for Julia’s safety so he went home. He has trouble getting in (even thinking that someone maybe in the house.) His panic would have increased. This is shown by the fact that the first thing that he asked the Johnston’s was if they’d heard anything suspicious? He enters the house and finds it in darkness. Increased concern. He goes into the kitchen and sees that the cupboard door has been pulled off. Any hope of a normal explaination of events disappear. This is foul play. Anyone in that position would have been frantic with worry and determined to find his wife immediately. So what does Wallace do?

He gets to the kitchen door which leads to the hallway. The Parlour door is within touching distance. Within 2 seconds he could either discover Julia in there or eliminate the Parlour from his search. None of it. Wallace ignores the Parlour and goes upstairs to search the bedrooms, the bathroom and his lab!

I’d suggest that anyone, and I mean anyone, in that position would automatically check the Parlour before going upstairs. The suggestion that he ignored the Parlour because it wasn’t used that often is risible and cannot be taken seriously. As if Wallace would stand within touching distance of the Parlour door and think “we’ll, we only really use the Parlour on certain occasions and so statistically speaking she uses the bedrooms more so I’ll leave the Parlour until last!”

Deeply suspicious to say the least. I’d suggest that Wallace wanted a final look around to ensure that he’d made no obvious errors.

I could also add, why would a sneak-thief turn off the downstairs lights? Even Antony thinks that this is suspicious. A sneak thief would have no reason to. Wallace, on the other hand, had a plan to discover the body later in the evening. The last thing he’d have wanted was someone knocking on the door, seeing the lights on but getting no reply, and raising the alarm.

These are suspicions which can only be ‘dismissed’ by the biased.

[Abby Normal]

In the attempt to bend over backwards to see everything that Wallace did in the light of his innocence I’ll add some more deeply suspicious behaviour.

At the end of his Menlove Garden East trek Wallace said that he began to be concerned for Julia’s safety so he went home. He has trouble getting in (even thinking that someone maybe in the house.) His panic would have increased. This is shown by the fact that the first thing that he asked the Johnston’s was if they’d heard anything suspicious? He enters the house and finds it in darkness. Increased concern. He goes into the kitchen and sees that the cupboard door has been pulled off. Any hope of a normal explaination of events disappear. This is foul play. Anyone in that position would have been frantic with worry and determined to find his wife immediately. So what does Wallace do?

He gets to the kitchen door which leads to the hallway. The Parlour door is within touching distance. Within 2 seconds he could either discover Julia in there or eliminate the Parlour from his search. None of it. Wallace ignores the Parlour and goes upstairs to search the bedrooms, the bathroom and his lab!

I’d suggest that anyone, and I mean anyone, in that position would automatically check the Parlour before going upstairs. The suggestion that he ignored the Parlour because it wasn’t used that often is risible and cannot be taken seriously. As if Wallace would stand within touching distance of the Parlour door and think “we’ll, we only really use the Parlour on certain occasions and so statistically speaking she uses the bedrooms more so I’ll leave the Parlour until last!”

Deeply suspicious to say the least. I’d suggest that Wallace wanted a final look around to ensure that he’d made no obvious errors.

I could also add, why would a sneak-thief turn off the downstairs lights? Even Antony thinks that this is suspicious. A sneak thief would have no reason to. Wallace, on the other hand, had a plan to discover the body later in the evening. The last thing he’d have wanted was someone knocking on the door, seeing the lights on but getting no reply, and raising the alarm.

These are suspicions which can only be ‘dismissed’ by the biased.

But herlock isnt that exactly what he wanted? To have someone else discover something was amiss amd discover her body when he was still out?

I dont feel it odd he might have started feeling alarmed when he realized the qualtrough trip was a wild goose chase, and not being able to then get into the house. But as ive said it does seem a little odd hes having trouble getting into the house at that exact time, but and i think folks are over looking this point is that it is even more odd, that as soon as the johnstons appear, boom he gets in.

Also i do find it odd he didnt check the parlour first, but sometimes people do strange things in stressful circs, you never know how people react or what they do in those types of situations, maybe there was something that was going through his mind that made him think of the upstairs first.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Eten,

If Wallace locked the door before he left then his attempt to gain entry could still have been play acting. No one saw him closely enough to see how much effort he was putting in to opening the door.

Wallace might even have conceived of the idea that a bolted door might point toward an intruder whilst he was out. He then pretends to try and get in by the front door. When he finally enters the house he’s alone. He could easily have bolted the door then.

Wallace was trying to give the impression that there was an intruder still in the house. He mentioned this to the police but then denied saying it. If I recall correctly (and I believe that I do Rod claimed that Inspector Gold made this up or was in error.) But this is from the trial:

Counsel: Do you remember Inspector Gold asking you if you thought anyone was in the house when you got back, and do you remember your answer?

Wallace: No, I do not.

Counsel: Do you still think that, when you returned, someone was in the house?

Wallace: No, I do not.

Counsel: You have given that theory up?

Wallace: Yes.

Counsel: Did you ever believe it?

Wallace: I might have done at the moment.

“At the moment” could only mean at the time of the crime as he’s clearly saying that he no longer believes it. So we have Wallace trying to distance himself from the truth that he ‘believed’ that someone was in the house when he got home.

Leading on from this we might ask why, if he felt there was an intruder in the house, did he not ask Mr Johnston to accompany him inside? Wallace hardly strikes us as the Steven Seagal type. Maybe he didn’t want Johnston to see him bolt the door? Of course if Johnston had insisted on coming in with him then the door would have remained unbolted Wallace would have lost nothing.

Hi hs
Im having trouble understanding the argument here. So he thought someone might still have been in the hoise? So what? Once he got in obviously realized no one was. Not sure how the above exchange points in any way to him changing his story or guilt. Am i missing something?

[Abby Normal]

I have a stupid question. Both doors were locked when wallace got home correct?

How could an intruder have locked both doors when he left? The front door was bolted from within right? And the back door was locked forcing wallace to use his key to get in correct?

How would an intruder who presumably had no key lock the back door when he left? Was it a door that automatically locked when closed?

[Harry D]

Robbery obviously wasn't the motive. I can't imagine a robber wouldn't ransack the victim's purse, or the rest of the house, but instead carefully takes money out of the cash-box and puts it back on the shelf with the lid on. And to reiterate what caz (I think?) said, if the intruder had a vendetta against Wallace, he would've been the likelier target, rather than Julia.

Wallace, Wallace, Wallace.

[RodCrosby]

Also i do find it odd he didnt check the parlour first, but sometimes people do strange things in stressful circs, you never know how people react or what they do in those types of situations, maybe there was something that was going through his mind that made him think of the upstairs first.

When I used to visit my grandmother as a child, she had a parlour, with a piano. The door was always closed, sometimes locked. Over the course of ten years, I think I entered that room twice...

Anyhow, Inspector Gold (once he was sober again) applied his mind to the matter of why Wallace had gone upstairs first.
"Wallace may have thought she had gone to bed. He knew she had a cold."
report for Superintendent Moore, February 1931

So nothing strange at all, Abby. Just another meaningless innocent happenstance, latched on to by obsessive little Wallace-ites.

Because they really have NOTHING ELSE...

[Abby Normal]

Robbery obviously wasn't the motive. I can't imagine a robber wouldn't ransack the victim's purse, or the rest of the house, but instead carefully takes money out of the cash-box and puts it back on the shelf with the lid on. And to reiterate what caz (I think?) said, if the intruder had a vendetta against Wallace, he would've been the likelier target, rather than Julia.

Wallace, Wallace, Wallace.

Hi harry
On the face if it because of the safe, it looks like it may have been a robbery gone wrong , but the actual crime scene points strongly away and that murder was the motive and robbery staged.

For the life of me i cant fit a sequence of events with a botched robbery gone wrong given the evidence. Can anyone?

I mean are you really going to plan out a petty robbery that includes brutal murder from the start?

Maybe revenge which included robbery and murder, but wouldnt they target wallace? What would someone have against julia?

[RodCrosby]

For the life of me i cant fit a sequence of events with a botched robbery gone wrong given the evidence. Can anyone?

Yes. It's in Antony's book, described there as "on balance...the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history."

[Abby Normal]

Yes. It's in Antony's book, described there as "on balance...the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history."

Thanks rod, im going to get the book as soon as available in the states.

[RodCrosby]

The Kindle edition is now available via the UK site...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Move-Murder-brutally-murdered-Collection/dp/1907324739/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543681532&sr=8-1&keywords=move+to+murder