Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[moste]

It certainly wouldn't/isn't an unsafe place to be knocking at night, I don't know where that came from.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I have asked Rod to come back, hopefully he or Antony will come back (you can't have a trial with a prosecution and no defence!).

Anyway I found an interesting quote from him earlier in the thread:

In my view, the evidence does not support the theory that Julia was attacked while in the process of lighting the fire. The gas tap was to the right of the fire, but no bloodstains were found in that corner of the room. All the bloodspatter was to the left of the fire, on the violin case, and up the walls there. Professor MacFall thought she had been sitting on the chair to the left of the fire when attacked. It is generally agreed the investigators could have done a better job, although I'm not sure how advanced spatter analysis was in 1931.

Is this accurate? I also tended to believe she had been sitting in the chair on the left when attacked.

Of course, for some reason her legs were then moved to the opposite side. Why this might be, I do not know.

MacFall also said she may have been getting up from the process of lighting the fire.

---

I think at the moment I have a few ideas floating around in my head aside from solo Wallace...

Wallace making Parry ring using a false pretext (e.g. saying he was going to pull off a robbery or insurance scam) and then killing Julia himself. He may have assumed he was in the clear, knowing Beattie would say it wasn't his voice, and knowing Parry had no alibi for the call.

Parry and the Johnstons being involved in one of the many housebreaking syndicates, and Parry making the call and the Johnstons then attempting to thieve the home. We may say one of the two distracted Julia in the parlor while another came in the back with the dupe key, then the partially-broken cupboard door snapped off, causing a loud sound, at which point the person in the parlor hit Julia before she could investigate.

Wallace having Parry ring on false pretenses, then having the Johnstons (via blackmail of knowing John was housebreaking) play some role. Possibly as the killers, or even a cleanup or disposal crew? And to come out of their home to "coincidentally" discover him and corroborate the story of him finding Julia dead.

Johnstons alone, having small talk knowledge from Wallace that he was expecting to attend chess club that monday night. Old-man-voice Johnston making the call from the booth, then possibly kidnapping the cat as a way to distract Julia or whatever the following day I do not know...

---

Most of these musings hinge on the suspicious nature of Parry's alibi for the night of the call. But due to his parents attempting to smuggle him out of the country, it's possible the Brine alibi is false and coerced, so he may have in fact been available on the murder night. But I certainly don't think he would kill Julia.

I am almost certain Parkes embellished the facts if Parry had dropped by the garage (way too unnatural for someone to randomly volunteer where they disposed the weapon etc.)

And another thought occurred to me:

For some reason Wallace was not recalled as having been on that first tram. Nor on the way home, despite his very distinctive and memorable appearance. No fare collectors or conductors on these trams recognized him?

Shouldn't the first tram be the most important place to first make your presence known?

I suspect perhaps he had an unnatural way to beat the clock - for example he did NOT take the tram there or home, he had a ride, which would greatly extend the window of time he had, both to commit an act and then also to possibly do a bit of spring cleaning and staging on the way back.

If Parry's alibi is false I suspect a possibility that Parry had given him a ride. And if Parkes testimony has any grain of truth (I doubt Parry randomly blurted out he'd hang for the bloodied glove, instead of making an excuse, but perhaps there was such a glove), the items for disposal may have been dumped upon him. And he'd be all like "WTF?!?!?!" But at that point he's too heavily involved so has to do as he's told... One issue with this is the lack of car sounds heard that night.

---

New newapaper findings:

Crewe testified in court that he had no idea where Menlove Gardens was. I don't know if this is common knowledge.

There was also a claim by the prosecution that Crewe had been laid up sick for some time and Wallace had to fill in going to visit him 2 or 3 times a week. This was vehemently denied by Crewe.

Mr Bishop appeared to be prejudicing opinion against Wallace when at the initial hearing where the crown is simply meant to state the facts as they happened, with no suggestion. Allen called this out, and in response Mr Bishop smiled evilly (srs) and said he was simply trying to give the facts.

Also I think this is certainly known, but in the papers it is reported that club members established it would be off of Menlove Avenue (the gardens would be). Beattie had told Wallace he should most definitely look it up in advance (i.e. check a directory) because it's a "bad place to be knocking about at night". Wallace swiftly shut down the idea of checking a directory, exclaiming that he belonged to Liverpool and could certainly find it himself.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Good points. It certainly suggests precaution. At the risk of sounding like a broken record only Wallace would have taken such care. A burglar/sneak-thief would undoubtedly have worn gloves which would have very likely have had blood on them. It’s unthinkable that they would have been so stupid as to take off his gloves to leave prints.

I think it's very likely the killer wore gloves when he attacked Julia, both a burglar and killer would have reason to do so.

I think the killer DID actually wack Julia then remove gloves - most probably. Reason being, that if he had gloves on and kept them on, I do tend to think that blood would be on the handles. Instead the handles are clean, suggesting that either hands were wiped clean with a rag or something, or gloves were removed... Or handles were wiped before police arrived.

That said, I DON'T think Wallace (or anyone else for that matter) had any reason to not want blood upon the handles, if he had gloves on. It is only explained that the perpetrator removed them so as to not walk out of the home with blood-soaked gloves on. Like, their purpose was just for protection like the mackintosh was purported to have been used for... I think a burglar would have fled the home still wearing the gloves, and only taken them off once outside the property, to prevent fingerprints at the scene... Yes he may have pushed on door handles with his elbows etc, but WHY, what purpose could it POSSIBLY serve a burglar to want to keep handles spotless if he had gloves on?

In the home, the only fingerprints found belonged to the investigators, Wallace, and the Johnstons. This can implicate either Wallace himself or the Johnstons, or both Wallace and the Johnstons in a conspiracy. THAT SAID, in the newspaper reports of the time, it's stated that many fingerprints were "smeared" or "blurred" and thus of no use... It's also worth noting that contemporary papers of that time explain that due to the police strike, some members of the force took to housebreaking, and would then "investigate their own crimes", which, of course, would never be solved. So as an extreeeeeeme fringe outlier possibility it could also implicate one of the investigators who entered the home.

It raises an interesting proposition though in an innocent Wallace scenario: Did the Johnstons meet Wallace outside on purpose, to gain entry into his home, so as to provide an explanation for their fingerprints being at the scene? As in, the back door really WAS locked when Wallace got home. Johnston unlocked it when Wallace went round to the front, then as he came back they're "coincidentally" just leaving their house to go visit Phyllis. At 9 PM. With Mr. Johnston having a job requiring him to wake at 4 AM.

---

By the way I only just learned, that Wallace's dying words to Allen (one of his defence team) was something like, "well we won sonny, didn't we?" Looool. I can't decide if that's peculiar or not. Like if it's a "we got away with it" comment or a "we rightly won my freedom" comment. Reminds me of the end of the Primal Fear movie where the main character admits he was pretending to have multiple personality disorder all along to get found innocent by reason of insanity, then brags to psychiatrist about how he murdered everyone. Lol.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do wonder how the person got out of the home without leaving fingerprints OR blood marks on door handles or any other items we know were touched.

If the intruder was initially wearing gloves and attacked her, we can most certainly expect they would get blood upon them, which may then transfer onto other touched objects like the door handle when making his or her escape.

If the intruder was NOT wearing gloves initially, and put them on to cover the blood on his hands, then why are there no fingerprints in the home of anyone other than Wallace, the Johnstons, and the investigators?

Why would someome go to any length to ensure they do not leave blood marks on handles etc.

I suppose it's possible the palm side of the glove would be left clean.

Good points. It certainly suggests precaution. At the risk of sounding like a broken record only Wallace would have taken such care. A burglar/sneak-thief would undoubtedly have worn gloves which would have very likely have had blood on them. It’s unthinkable that they would have been so stupid as to take off his gloves to leave prints.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I do wonder how the person got out of the home without leaving fingerprints OR blood marks on door handles or any other items we know were touched.

If the intruder was initially wearing gloves and attacked her, we can most certainly expect they would get blood upon them, which may then transfer onto other touched objects like the door handle when making his or her escape.

If the intruder was NOT wearing gloves initially, and put them on to cover the blood on his hands, then why are there no fingerprints in the home of anyone other than Wallace, the Johnstons, and the investigators?

Why would someome go to any length to ensure they do not leave blood marks on handles etc.

I suppose it's possible the palm side of the glove would be left clean.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Exact replica #19 and 29 except for dead woman. Was the cupboard door ripped off? Just wondering.

Not sure, I wouldn't think so. But what we do have is:

1) No forced entry.

2) Only the "cash container" stolen from.

3) The container REPLACED in its original position (very important).

4) Pillows and sheets randomly thrown around upstairs in the bedroom.

That crime was only a month earlier, just before Christmas... For it to be sheer coincidence that the scenes are basically the exact same is a bit of a stretch. And I don't think anyone else on the street would be unaware of the details of what had happened. Especially if Wallace found out who did it and blackmailed them to commit murder.

But I think anyone could have known the details.

In the case of a murder, I think the scene was CLEARLY staged to make police believe it was the same perpetrator who had burgled 19 Wolverton Street. This is an important point, definitely. Or truly the same perpetrator. But with the latter (the idea of it being an actual burglary) I have a lot of issue with Julia being in the parlor.

That's why I urge innocent Wallace believers to explain why ELSE Julia may be in the parlor if not entertaining an admitted guest, setting up the room for music, or just setting it up on the requets of her husband. With Julia dead in the parlor, and total silence, I think it is impossible that someone entered as a guest, "sneak thieved" from the box, and got caught.

Sneak thief for me can only even be POSSIBLE if there are two people in the home. The version Antony presents with the singular intruder is practically impossible, probably the closest to impossible of any theory. The lack of noise could be explained if it was the Johnstons (the cupboard being pulled off unheard). But actually that said, I tend to believe actual screams or any serious commotion including crashing cupboard doors would be heard by the residents at 27 Wolverton Street, and probably even further down the street than that lol. The neighbor I BELIEVE to be the resident of #27 said she had a dog who went bezerk at any unusual noise.

Keep in mind though we only have Wallace's word on when that cupboard door was removed.

[moste]

Exact replica #19 and 29 except for dead woman. Was the cupboard door ripped off? Just wondering.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I think you could easily do a little old lady in with an iron bar of even pretty poor dimensions, ESPECIALLY if it's solid and not hollow. It was described as about a foot long and the width of a candlestick. But indeed my mind had for some reason envisioned this giant slab or iron even after reading that. The poker was 9 inches.

Don't see the point in them as red herrings if Wallace did it. How does it help him in any way? He didn't even tell police they were missing, just pointed out that his kinky bondage whip had been gone for a year.

I don't think he could shield his face in the way you suggest. But again it's not that impotant as long as he takes his glasses off. Wiping blood clean from your face is simple with a rag. As long as it doesn't drip down onto your clothing underneath you're cool.

It does make me consider an interesting point though, the whole "her mackintosh... And my mackintosh" thing. Perhaps if someone else went in to do the deed, they were meant to take one of JULIA'S jackets and use it to shield themselves, which would imply to police she had been wearing it to fend off the cold.

[moste]

On the bar thing again,even if Julia was struck very hard with a bar of these dimensions , it's unlikely she would have hit the ground . Much more likely is that she would have raised her arms to protect from further blows , while screaming blue murder at the top of her lungs.
On the Mac subject , I'm on board with Herlocks suggestion that it was used as a shield , in fact I would go even further and suggest it would be quite possible once the victim is still, to kneel or crouch next to her and deliver numerous blows while jerking the garment up above his face level, just a split second before each impact, thus avoiding any blood contamination at all. For a guilty Wallace , this would go hand in hand with a ' well planned exercise' .

[moste]

Quote:. I would assume if both items were missing, the poker hit her first, then, realizing it wasn't strong enough to do a "thorough" job, the iron bar was used to absolutely obliterate her skull.

I don't believe either of these items were used . The cleaner lady picked out in court what she claimed to be , an iron bar as close as dammit to the one in the parlour hearth.It was specified as 15 inches long and 1/2 an inch thick, that's thinner than the average adult males pinky! ( little finger to us Limeys) I have never heard of an iron bar being kept close by to a GAS FIRE, for any purpose ,(particularly not for cleaning) perhaps a plumber could help us here. I think the missing items are further examples of 'red herring country' . The effort involved to obliterate a human skull with a metal bar 1/2 inch thick would be immense , be like cutting your front lawn with a pair of scissors , LoL . Compare the description of the bar with Dr. McCall's suggested description of the weapon used. I'm going with a 2 1/2 pound ball pein hammer , and since there is some ambiguity as to the number of blows struck , I would suggest 4 or 5 max. (Understandable ambiguity I might add, since the blows rained down at roughly the same spot, how can anyone be certain )
On another subject, I do think it futile to try and second guess Wallace's demeanour by comparing him with ourselves. I 'm of the opinion he was a completely different animal from your average 'Joe Blow ' in this day and age.I.E . him chatting freely with a neighbour about chess club visits , versus us possibly mentioning popping over to the gym, we're talking Victorian era , Victorian standards here ,and then some, especially I would add where Wallace was concerned.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I’ve certainly heard this before WWH but I just can’t recall where or any more details. I’m sure that Rod would be able to give more background on this from his years of research. Likewise Antony.

He can, as I saw Rod said both Harriss and Parry mean "son of Harry". But there was literally a Mr..Harris at 79 Richmond Park with access to the same back entry way thing. Also Dora Parry, not sure if her dad or an s.o. lived there as I'm mid-sleep atm.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just saw something noteworthy...

I just found out "Winifred Duke" named a man called "Harris" as being "Qualtrough" in like, 1936 or something. It's speculated this was an obscure reference to Gordon Parry.

But we see a man with the surname Harris lived at 79 Richmond Park, which had access into the back entry system and was only a few doors down from 29 Wolverton Street.

He was a ship yard worker like Mr. Johnston.

Anything to this? I've never read his writing, just saw that info.

I’ve certainly heard this before WWH but I just can’t recall where or any more details. I’m sure that Rod would be able to give more background on this from his years of research. Likewise Antony.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Just saw something noteworthy...

I just found out "Winifred Duke" named a man called "Harris" as being "Qualtrough" in like, 1936 or something. It's speculated this was an obscure reference to Gordon Parry.

But we see a man with the surname Harris lived at 79 Richmond Park, which had access into the back entry system and was only a few doors down from 29 Wolverton Street.

He was a ship yard worker like Mr. Johnston.

Anything to this? I've never read his writing, just saw that info.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yeah that works (if he knelt)... Then he'd just need to wipe his face off with a rag, incinerate the hat and rag or whatever... And take the bar and poker away with him. Of course he'd also have to remove the mack with EXTREME care. and be hyperaware of where the blood is going so he doesn't accidentally step in or kneel in it etc.

I would assume if both items were missing, the poker hit her first, then, realizing it wasn't strong enough to do a "thorough" job, the iron bar was used to absolutely obliterate her skull.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He would need basically full covering, so a hat, mackintosh, trousers, and socks. All would then be disposed of. Was there not a fire on in the kitchen? Such items could be incinerated. But then I wonder why the mack would be left in the parlor lol.

If hed knelt next to Julia’s body after delivering the first blow, which rendered her either unconscious or very close to it, the mackintosh would have covered him from the neck downwards. I then suspect that Wallace pushed the mackintosh underneath Julia’s body because he knew that it would have the effect of smearing the blood spatter (effectively making it look unlike blood spatter.) It was interesting when Rod (in his usual way) mocked my suggestion that Wallace might have used the mackintosh as a shield, to discover in his John Bull articles Wallace himself suggests this as a possibility. Was this a subtle taunt to the police?” “”I know what the mackintosh was there for”.“” Consider Wallace’s hesitancy when asked about it?

If the mackintosh wasn’t used as part of the murder then we have to come up with a reason for it being beneath the body. Two other suggestions have been made. Either Julia had worn it or she’d thrown it over her shoulders against the cold. There are two problems with these suggestions; a smaller one and a bigger one. The smaller one is the question ‘why would Julia wear a mackintosh inside the house when she didn’t wear one when she went outside the house to see William off at the gate? The bigger question though is in two parts a) if she’d had it on and then taken it off why would she have held onto it and not dropped it where the first blow was struck and b) If shedworn it over her shoulders can anyone really come up with a scenario where, with it over her shoulders, she was struck and fell onto her front with the coat bunched up underneath her. I’d say that it was impossible.

Of course would be a logical fallacy for me to say that because the other explanations don’t work then my suggestion must be the truth. But, taken as a whole, I feel that the mackintosh being used by the killer is the likeliest explanation. It even provides a possible way for William to have gotten Julia into the Parlour.