Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

If this were the case then we would be exonerating Wallace as he couldn’t have known what the scene at #19 had looked like.

Why wouldn't he? I'm sure if someone was burgled on your street you would be privvy to the details. Like know that only their savings had been taken etc., to know that there wasn't a forced entry. It was already known that there had been a number of burglaries in the area using duplicate keys etc.

The coincidence would be way too much in this case. The crime scene is essentially a 1:1 identical replica, except in #29 you had a dead woman too. But everything else is basically identical, down to the cash container being replaced and nothing else stolen.

And of course if he conspired with the same person who did the #19 job (using his knowledge that they have been housebreaking as blackmail to commit murder) it'd be easy as well.

Personally I’m convinced that the information that Wallace was attending the club that night could only have been Wallace or someone who watched him.

I'm not making the point that Wallace or Parry aren't good candidates for the call, just that I don't think it can be used with certainty to rule out other possibilities.

For example, he easily could have mentioned in passing to someone he was familiar with that he was expecting to play a chess match later on that evening. Like I said, I live on a terrace, neighbors strike up small talk (mainly the ones we are closest to) and it's common to mention things in passing. Like saying I'm going to the gym, or whatever.

So I wouldn't say ONLY Wallace could have known he was going, I don't think that's a fair assumption. It's more correct to say that it's more LIKELY only he could have known. But I wouldn't use it to strike out any other possibility.

---

I do think Wallace was involved, but I don't want to use that evidence as anything more than a hint. As for clothing, I think the face is the least important part to cover. The hair and everything below the neck is more important IMO, I'll explain why. A face can be easily wiped clean with a rag, very easily. Hair is much more difficult... And if there's any on your body, if you were nude, it would probably transfer in microscopic amounts onto whatever you then changed into. They can't benzidine test your face.

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 it really was Wallace's plan, I don't really think he's THAT smart, so there's probably a simple explanation for things. Like he's not Kasparov. For this to be one of the "greatest ever murder mysteries" there has to have been some huge element of luck or bad detective work that made it appear as such. The latter being quite likely, we know the police were crap.

I think someone else like the Johnstons gained admittance to body her. Parry may or may not have had any involvement. If he did I think he was the "disposal guy" and thought they were pulling off an insurance scam or some ****, then was horrified when a bunch of blood-soaked items were dumped upon him to take care of lol.

It's bullshit that the Johnstons and Wallaces were like strangers to each other. Do you send people who are "basically strangers" postcards telling them you're having a lovely time in Anglesey? Lol... I'm shocked Wallace (if innocent) didn't call them out when Mr. Johnston said he didn't even know Julia's name, and Mrs. Johnston said she'd only ever been in the parlor 3 times in a decade... ... Uh they entrusted you to open and close their curtains while on vacation, obviously you've been in more rooms than the parlor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But yes, the scene at 29 Wolverton Street was either the work of the SAME PERSON who burgled 19 Wolverton Street. OR it was PURPOSEFULLY staged to look identical to #19 so as to throw off police.

If this were the case then we would be exonerating Wallace as he couldn’t have known what the scene at #19 had looked like.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And even if he didn't, did people not have to pay fares? Wallace is a VERY distinctive looking man, his build, his face, his height. He certainly stands out a bit. You would think SOMEONE would recall seeing him, particularly anyone who took fares... And that brings me back to the point above on the timing. Did he have some way to get to Smithdown Lane much faster than he could have by tram? If so then it would make sense WHY he would choose to not make his presence known on the first tram he got on - since he never took it...

It might have been the case that the police weren’t that interested in the return journey as they had the Johnston’s to confirm what time he’d arrived at Wolverton Street. The police remember made no investigatigation into the Monday night trams either. It’s a black mark against the police investigation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't feel a mackintosh is enough protection. He had to be SPOTLESS. It would have covered a large portion of his body, and of course a glove and hat even more, but he would still have some exposure. If he had planned the murder in the way it is suggested (that he would get out of the house at a time which makes it nearly impossible he could have done it), then he couldn't have known in advance that he'd get "lucky" to not be drenched, so it was quite risky.

I think that by using the mackintosh and gloves only his face would have been exposed. If he’d used it as a shield rather than by wearing it I’d say that he could have covered half of his face.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Given that Parkes apparently initially demanded money to give up the information,

I may be wrong but I don’t think that it was Parkes that asked for money. I think that it was the guy that originally contacted Wilkes who said that he could put him in touch with Parkes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The other forum poster agrees with this train of thought, but I don't necessarily. Like I said I can easily see him or Julia relaying that info to someone else. Draper working there the previous Wednesday hearing that he would be attending? Neighbors? Like if someone had saw Wallace leaving and said hello, they might have asked where he was headed, then naturally he would tell them and think nothing of it. There are a number of scenarios in which I can see someone else being able to know where he was going that night.

I’m fairly sure that Wallace’s decision to go to chess was fairly last minute but even if not he was still an irregular attender so if a neighbour had seen him leaving and asked it still wouldn’t have meant that he’d be going next week. We also have to remember that chess club was two nights a week.

I do also definitely see your point though... But I wouldn't rely on that alone to rule anything out.

Except I don't think a car was necessarily needed. The caller could easily have someone waiting there at the café, who would then, on the following day or later that night, be able to confirm Wallace had turned up.

I’d say that a car would certainly have been needed if someone was watching to see if he went to chess. If they had randomly made the call when Wallace wasn’t attending it’s possible that he wouldn’t have gotten the message and I really can’t see him trying the same trick twice as they would have had a week to contact Wallace in some other way. If he or they were in Breck Road watching to see if Wallace went to chess they would have needed a car because as soon as Wallace turned left into Breck he was walking past a tram stop which would have made him doubt where he was going. There was another stop near Newcombe Street but they wouldn’t have been able to see Wallace from their vantage point so they would have had to follow him. Wallace walked past that stop too. So they would have had to have had a car to follow Wallace, keeping him in sight, then getting back to the call box for 7.15.

Personally I’m convinced that the information that Wallace was attending the club that night could only have been Wallace or someone who watched him.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I got two from Richmond Park, the Wolverton entry side:

79 Richmond Park - Mr. J Harris, chief engineer, worked for a shipping company like Mr. Johnston, but it was the "Pool Shipping Co.". This was in a report about the ship "Willowpool", and is from 1939.

83 Richmond Park - W. Hartley. Filed a complaint to the local council about the state of the Sedley-street to Richmond-park thoroughfare on January 15th, 1930. He says: "The narrow gorge at one end and the quagmire at the other end, with two grids protruding six inches or more above the ground are positively dangerous especially in view of the poor illumination." [I bold the latter, as a dimly lit area may provide a good getaway path for a killer etc.]

---

Not sure any of this will be helpful lmfao. I've gone full "Gannon"... But just in case... But in my mind, I'm suspecting the Johnstons being in on it... If it was one of the very many "housebreaking syndicates" of the time, could Parry be involved in such a thing? Mr. Johnston needed the money lord knows... And in regards to Parry, I'm sure he wouldn't see stealing from the insurance box as stealing from Wallace, since it's the company's money... So perhaps we have a Parry or some other chess club member/drama club member/Draper and Johnston family conspiracy.

BUT I tend to favor one of the Wallaces and the Johnstons. Not necessarily William. I would like to debate that point... Remember Amy dropped by and gathered the information that Wallace was going to meet Qualtrough at around 3:30 PM on the day of the murder. And don't just play off the EXACT description of Joseph Wallace, reported to be fleeing from the scene in a cab towards Sefton park, dropped off close to where Amy Wallace's apartment is, and also the home that Joseph rented out... With a trip to dump items in Prince's Park lake, it's a very plausible route.

I dare anyone to give a more accurate description of Joseph than that driver gave: "Thin build, rimmed glasses, hair just turning grey, slight moustache, sharp features, about 5'11, well-mannered, well-spoken."

But I do think William and the Johnstons is more likely. Or William, Johnstons and Parry (with Parry unaware that they were going to kill Julia - I do not believe he would willingly take part in a killing - only theft or fraud or something like that).

---

Now what say you?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Another report from Mrs. Johnston went mildly more into depth. She specified that "picture number 7" looked more like the room (although, she said, she supposes rooms look different in photographs) - but said that the body seemed to be in a different position. She also said that the door was in the usual position, if that's of importance to you. She also said when she arrived, it seemed as though no furniture had been disturbed.

One of the Johnstons said the head was about "18 inches from the door", but clarified they meant 18 inches with the door open.

The reason Draper had not been at work apparently was because her husband had just died.

---

I may have some more names of neighbors but it's a little shakey as some of the inclusions are dates in the late 1930s, and you never know who's moved in and out since the murder. But still here you go...

I've bolded the odd numbered addresses, as I believe a killer/accomplice could vanish easily into one of those homes, and by the yard door being unbolted and the front on latch, we know the person came out the back into the entry behind Wolverton Street:

---

1 Wolverton Street - Pvt. Roy Rawlinson Died at 21 in 1945, BUT, may have lived at 1 Wolverton Street with parents Mr. and Mrs. Rawlinson.

4 Wolverton Street - Arthur Miller and Janet Miller. Arthur died May 22nd, 1938.

? Wolverton Street - John Frederick Miller. Living in Wolverton Street, Liverpool, in 1934. Was found guilty of "false pretences" (whatever that means) with George Eaves of Townsend Lane, were bound over for three years at the Manchester Assizes today. [May be at #4, living with Arthur and Janet].

6 Wolverton Street - Sydney Earnshaw Kirkman and Minnie Alexandra Kirkmam. Annie fell (or jumped lol) from 112 foot up from the roof of the Bon Marché store, Church-street on April 29, 1942. Some papers have written "Kirkham". Probable suicide.

8 Wolverton Street - "Gyp" the dog (lmao), lost notice in the papers placed on June 3rd, 1944. Residents names unknown.

9 Wolverton Street - Sarah Critchley, died November 20th, 1943. OR "Elsie Nevinson and all at 9, Wolverton Street", but the latter was a memorium to someone else in 1918...

13 Wolverton Street - Edgar Harold Douglas and Ann Douglas. Edgar died May 8th, 1938.

12 Wolverton Street - Sarah Lloyd. Died February 17 (1939?).

15 Wolverton Street - Unsure, says "Robert Holliday" as the name, late of 166 Boaler Street, published 1943. Then says: Inquiries and cortege from 15 Wolverton Street. Do not know what this means.

16 Wolverton Street - Dora Parry, died January 21 1928, but her "mam [sic], dad, and sisters" who "fondly remembered her" may or may not have lived there with her?

18 Wolverton Street - John Jervis Sandiford, died February 25th, 1939.

19 Wolverton Street - Mary E. Foggarty and Charles Foggarty. Mary died March 18th (1936) - [But I have reason to believe that Samuel and Clara Shotton were the residents of #19 when the 1930 burglary took place.]

21 Wolverton Street - Albert Peter Ford, died in May 1942 (?) in Malaya [could he have known Joseph Wallace, Wallace's brother, who also lived in Malaya?] at age 32, son in law of Mr. and Mrs. E Harrison, who it appears also lived at this address. It seems Mr. Harrison died in 1945.

22 Wolverton Street - Edith M. Bentley and A. P. Bentley. Edith died February 4th, 1940.

24 Wolverton Street - Archibald Campbell Berrie and Janet Berrie. Archibald died January 7th, 1942. He fathered two children, May and Archie, who may or may not have shared the home.

25 Wolverton Street - There's a birthday memorium to a Gladys Dawson and "baby Gladys"? However the residents names aren't said, as it says Dawson is a "friend" and is "remembered by All at 25 Wolverton Street".

30 Wolverton Street - Norman Hopkins, drowned in India in July, aged 24, probably 1943.

---

Weird Fatalities:

James Green - The name of the man who dropped dead at a football stadium, middle-aged, had two companions with him. Had almost reached the turnstiles then leant against a wall and collapsed. Was then pronounced dead by a doctor. I think it was the match between Liverpool F.C. and Burnley on the 25th of December, 1928. They lost 3-2.

---

I would find Richmond Park residents, but I think it will be harder... I'll have a go.

[WallaceWackedHer]

^ That should be "violin stand was immediately behind Mrs. Wallace's head" of course. Sorry for the spelling errors it's difficult to type all these out.

[WallaceWackedHer]

More newspaper findings:

It is confirmed that the residents living at #33 were indeed the "Cadwalladers". It is alleged in a book on the case that Mr. Cadwallader of 33 Wolverton Street had wandered into Wallace's home drunk causing Mrs. Wallace to scream, but I could not find any mention of that name so wasn't sure if it was true.

However, this paper says that his widow, Mrs. Cadwallader, indeed did live at #33. So that's another person with a known dupe key if that's of any importance to you.

A new tidbit from the trial, where one of the defence is in effect told to sit the **** down lol:

While questioning Mr. Crewe:

Mr. Bishop - Has Mr. Wallace ever visited you there? - Yes.

How many times? - Four, five, or six.

Mr. Bishop repeated this, and Mr. Scholefield Allen rose to object. "He said four or five Mr. Bishop."

Mr. Bishop questioned witness further on this, and Mr. Allen said "Don't put words into his mouth he didn't use."

Mr. Bishop - Will you please sit down Mr. Scholefield Allen.

Witness, in reply to the clerk, said his original words were "Four, five, or perhaps six." He now wished to give it as "Four or five."

Lol

More trial excerpts not in Wyndham Brown's book:

Witness said that no form of words would be too high praise for Wallace in that respect (that he was "kindly").

Did you know Mrs. Wallace - Yes.

Mr. Allen - Did you frequently visit the Wallace's at their own house in Wolverton-street? - I have not visited the house for twelve months, but previously to that I did frequently visit the house. May I add that I have seen Mrs. Wallace frequently during that twelve months?

Were they a happy couple? - Yes. Mr. Wallace's world, and Mrs. Wallace's world, were confined to their two selves. No one else mattered. They were all in all to each other.

Two years ago, when Mr. Wallace visited your house, did you give him directions how to get there? - Yes.

The nearest tram-stop to your house is at the corner of Allerton-road, near Mather-avenue? - Yes.

So that of this Menlove-garden district, the centre is about half a mile from that tram stop? - Yes.

Can you fix the month when these four or five visits to your house occurred? - It was winter, invariably about 8 p.m.

To your knowledge, was Mr. Wallace familiar with this district? - No.

Was his district the Clubmoor district? - Yes.

Did you ever know before this case whether or not there was a Menlove-gardens East? - No.

Mr. Allen remarked that the comment of Mr. Bishop (for the prosecution), with regard to Wallace knowing this place, was likely to prejudice the prisoner, and continued: "Here is a gentleman who lives within 1,500 feet and he did not know whether there was a Menlove-gardens East. Mr. Crewe is a superintendent of the Prudential, and I did not know the Prudential were in the habit of employing superintendents who were lacking in intelligence."

Continuing, counsel asked Crewe-Perhaps you can deal with this suggestion of Mr. Bishop's, which may prejudice the prisoner. Were you laid up two years ago?-I have never been ill a day in my life.

"Then it is incorrect to say, as Mr. Bishop said, that you, his chief, had been laid up two years ago, and that "the prisoner went there regularly two or three times a week?" - That is incorrect, absolutely. Mr. Wallace did not visit me.

Mr. Allen - Is there any foundation for the rumour still floating round Liverpool that there is another lady in the case?

The Magistrate-Witness would not know that.

Mr. Allen - He has spoken of their happy family relationships.

The question was nor pursued.

Witness said he was out of the house on the night of January 20.

Mr. Bishop - The nearest tram stop to your house is the one at the corner of Menlove-gardens and Green-lane?-I suppose I have the intelligence to answer that?

Mr. Bishop - Look at the plan; that might help you.

Witness said that the tram stop at the Allerton-road corner was the one he took, but the one at the corner of Menlove-avenue and Green-lane was the next nearest.

...

Cross-examined by Mr. Allen, witness said the stop on the corner of Green-lane and Menlove-avenue was on a different tram route.

Chief Inspector Alfred William Roberts, of Liverpool Police, said he received a lock from witness Detective-Inspector Gold, on January 26 last. He handed it over to witness Sarginson the same morning.

James Sarginson, locksmith, Dale-street, Liverpool, sad that on January 26 he examined the lock and found it diry and rusty. He took off the cover and found there was a considerable amount of dirt inside.. The lock appeared to have been out of condition for some considerable time, and there was no evidence of recent damage.

Witness produced another lock which he said was from the back kitchen door and was found to be rusty. When the knob was turned, with difficulty, the spring bolt remained inside the lock and the knob returned to its normal position.

Interestingly the paper again contradicts who said "whatever have they used". In the Press regarding the words of Mrs. Johnston:

Mr. Walsh - When your husband had gone for the doctor, what did you and Wallace do? - We went into the ktichen for a few minutes, and then returned to the sitting-room. He went first, and I was right behind him. He stooped over Mrs. Wallace, and they both felt her hand. Wallace said-: "They have finished her. Look at the brains. Whatever have they used?" - glancing around the room. Then he rose and came to the other side to leave the room (he had been on the window side) and said, 'Why, whatever was she doing with her mackintosh and my mackintosh?'"

Mrs. Johnston says the photograph looks like a "faked room":

Mrs. Johnston said, "To me the picture does not look like Mrs. Wallace's room. It looks like a faked room. I am just saying what I think. I suppose it is the conditions in which the photograph was taken."

Mr. Allen: I want this put in the depositions. I shall have something to say about these pictures.

Mrs. Johnston again looked at the photograph, and said she did not remember a certain chair, while a biolin stand was immediately behind Mrs. Wallace's head.

Mrs. Johnston added that Wallace and she were the only people in the room before the police came and they touched nothing.

Mr. Allen: What else do you consider different? - That was the chief thing-the appearance of the room and the chair behind her head.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I don't think the Wallaces were as chatty or as outgoing as you seem to think . And people wouldn't say to a neighbour in the street 'hello where are you off to'

I don't think they're chatty. But nor am I and my next door neighbors know when I go gym etc. Quite a few times when outside defrosting the car or whatever they'll strike up just a typical chit chatty conversation and I'll probably mention I'm off to the gym or w.e... If they ask me, like, "off to the gym?" I tell them and think nothing of it.

That's only my actual next door neighbors though. They're friendly with me. Nobody else on the street would know/say that I doubt. My neighbor on the other side, I know her but I don't think she knows much about me? I live on an end of terrace house.

But I'm saying I don't see that it's in the realm of impossibility. I wouldn't rule it out completely... The Wallaces and Johnstons were close enough to send postcards saying how they're having a nice time on vacation etc. I would only send postcards like that to someone I'm fairly close with. Like I'd hardly mail such a card to some random down the street who's maybe seen me once or twice rofl.

Oh and yeah same with Draper overhearing while working etc. Nomsayin'? I wouldn't say it's impossible for others to have known or have reason to heavily suspect he was off to the club.

I do think Wallace and Johnston involvement makes a lot of logical sense on many levels. Wallace completely uninvolved, Idno... I guess you could have Parry or some other person from the club and a neighbor too...

Neighbor eliminates the weirdness of the attacker vanishing unseen. And Johnstons in particular eliminate the "coincidental" meeting. Wallace at the back door: Locked. Wallace at the front door: Bolted on latch. Wallace back at the back door: Johnstons are there (who have a dupe key) and the back door magically opens now.

That's if you take Wallace at his word, that he was innocent etc. And of course we only have the word of Wallace and Johnstons that that series of events even happened (if I recall, Wallace was originally trying to give the impression the attacker was still in the home). Fortunate that the Johnstons heard his light knocks on both doors but not the cupboard being yanked off and dropping onto the floor etc.

But I think his involvement with the Johnstons in the plot would clear up many issues. I'm inclined to believe something like that.

[moste]

The other forum poster agrees with this train of thought, but I don't necessarily. Like I said I can easily see him or Julia relaying that info to someone else. Draper working there the previous Wednesday hearing that he would be attending? Neighbors? Like if someone had saw Wallace leaving and said hello, they might have asked where he was headed, then naturally he would tell them and think nothing of it. There are a number of scenarios in which I can see someone else being able to know where he was going that night.

I do also definitely see your point though... But I wouldn't rely on that alone to rule anything out.

Except I don't think a car was necessarily needed. The caller could easily have someone waiting there at the café, who would then, on the following day or later that night, be able to confirm Wallace had turned up.

I don't think the Wallaces were as chatty or as outgoing as you seem to think . And people wouldn't say to a neighbour in the street 'hello where are you off to'

[WallaceWackedHer]

To have made the phone call to the chess club the caller would have had to have been certain that Wallace was attending on that particular night especially as he hadn’t attended since before Christmas. This gives us only Wallace himself or someone watching Wallace from a car (not on foot) in Breck Road on the Monday night to ensure that he was going to the club.

The other forum poster agrees with this train of thought, but I don't necessarily. Like I said I can easily see him or Julia relaying that info to someone else. Draper working there the previous Wednesday hearing that he would be attending? Neighbors? Like if someone had saw Wallace leaving and said hello, they might have asked where he was headed, then naturally he would tell them and think nothing of it. There are a number of scenarios in which I can see someone else being able to know where he was going that night.

I do also definitely see your point though... But I wouldn't rely on that alone to rule anything out.

Except I don't think a car was necessarily needed. The caller could easily have someone waiting there at the café, who would then, on the following day or later that night, be able to confirm Wallace had turned up.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I think that we would need to know a little more about The Anfield Housebreakers m.o. If he got into houses using a skeleton key I’d find it difficult to believe that he would do this as early in the evening as the murder of Julia Wallace? Wouldn’t he have gone in when the lights were off and he believed that everyone was in bed? Would he have simply let himself into the Wallace’s back kitchen at, say, 7.30 with the risk of finding Wallace himself in the back kitchen?

For me the phone call and the murder have to be connected as part of a plan which could have only two explanations. a) to get Wallace out of the house or b) to give Wallace a reason for being absent and to point at the involvement of an unknown assailant.

We do need to, and probably it's information people who have seen the case files will be aware of... And we know that the Anfield Housebreaker (or HousebreakerS) went into people's homes during their temporary absence. It may have been difficult to get Julia out of the house, particularly as she was quite unwell, and apparently reclusive. I believe the cat may have been taken on purpose, possibly with the intention of using it in some way to get her out of the home, or to get in.

But either way like I said, the way I see it is there are only two possibilities: The crime was either committed by someone involved in the burglary at #19 OR purposefully staged as such to mislead police. The latter is quite likely in my opinion.

I'm wondering, why could Julia possibly be in the parlor if not for a guest arriving? Is there any other reason she might be in there? We heard that they barely used it except for music and visitors, and Wallace said it was a colder room than the living kitchen. Julia being in the parlor is the biggest issue I have with a burglary motive, as well as the silence... Though Johnston involvement helps with the latter, I mean, at best we can say they have very selective hearing - enough to hear "gentle knocks" on the back and front doors, but totally deaf to cupboards being wrenched off and anyone else entering the home/knocking/being admitted after Wallace left.

Random thought: Someone took the cat to the front door, and was admitted, distracting Julia in the parlor, while a second party entered the back door with a duplicate key. The yard door bolt is an issue here, so we have to work out if it was possible to unbolt it from the outside, or for Julia to forget to do it, or to scale the wall... For some reason, Julia heard a noise in the back room, and the person in the parlor with her hit her before she could investigate?

But to me it really seems like someone went in there (via wilfull admission from Julia, considering she's in the parlor) to kill her, then tried to make the scene look IDENTICAL to the crime that happened a month earlier just a few doors away to throw police off the scent... OR perhaps Wallace told her to prep the room and that he was just nipping out for a moment, then the killer entered in his place and did her in.

---

Here's a map showing the area, and my red outline showing the homes where the killer/burglar/accomplice could live, that would MAXIMIZE the odds of not being spotted:



If anyone had access to any of the homes within that red box, it would allow them to slip in, commit the crime, get out, and get back into their home with the highest chance of remaining undetected, by using the back entry system... If the killer does NOT have access to those homes, and it was NOT premeditated, then how did they get away? It was still like, 7 or 8 PM, there'd be people walking about. How far is it realistic for someone to be able to travel with noticeable blood upon them without being detected?

OR of course the killer could have handed items such as bloodstained clothing and weapons to any of the people within that box via the back entries, whether that killer was Wallace himself or anyone else.

Were the poker and iron bar taken away as red herrings for the police? If they were and Wallace was involved you would think he would mention them being there (or Sarah lying about the bar's existence which would be interesting)... Or did the killer first hit her with the poker, then think it wasn't strong enough to finish her off with certainty, so grabbed the iron bar and battered her on the back of the head with it to ensure she was dead?

[Herlock Sholmes]

as they'll have all the "why Wallace is innocent" facts.

There aren’t any