Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

She might (or might not) have done. She had bolted the back gate.

The killer unlocked one or both, as required, on his escape, anyhow.

[etenguy]

[INTERLUDE]

John Bull magazine, April-May 1932

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gpdhlzfnbae2ekc/JohnBull1.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0zozj4ja2xlq7ny/JohnBull2.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vzgdvkl5csixsxl/JohnBull3.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ssjpnxpu92rxh56/JohnBull4.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ti2brjcryxon65q/JohnBull5.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4dd2cpqv1ud6ho1/JohnBull6.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e134kvdrzh...Bull7.jpg?dl=0

[/INTERLUDE]

One or two errors in the facts by the ghostwriter, but Wallace's own story is well worth the read...

Thanks Rod. An interesting read.

I guess misogyny was rife in the early thirties but to read a piece so marbled with it makes me wonder if Wallace needed any motive beyond the fact his wife was female to furnish him a motive.

[Herlock Sholmes]

She might (or might not) have done. She had bolted the back gate.

The killer unlocked one or both, as required, on his escape, anyhow.

If she’d locked the back door using a key. How would the killer have known where the key was to unlock the door?

[etenguy]

Ok so it’s its agreed that the backdoor wasn’t actually locked or bolted. So we have either a) a tricky/faulty lock that didn’t open first time (and we know that the lock was defective to some extent.) or 2) Wallace was fumbling around nervously and so didn’t crack it first time. Or 3) Wallace was faking being unable to get in.

My question is still: why, when Julia knew that William would return via the front door (because he said that he always did at night) and it being night time and her alone in the house, did she not lock the back door after William left. This would seem to me the natural and probably the usual thing to do?

It would seem the answer to your question would be that the murderer exited through the back door, whether that be Wallace or someone else. Therefore if the door had been locked, they would need to have unlocked the door to exit.

[RodCrosby]

etenguy
I don't see that at all. Wallace is relating his experience, like it or not.

If it's the language you object to, it's no use judging the 1930s by the yardstick of today's PC thought-crimes...

And some women certainly in the 1930s had more time on their hands to indulge in local gossip.

And it wasn't only women who were against Wallace.

[etenguy]

If she’d locked the back door using a key. How would the killer have known where the key was to unlock the door?

It was probably still in the lock or on a hook next to the door. That's where mine usually is, and most people I know do the same.

[etenguy]

etenguy
I don't see that at all. Wallace is relating his experience, like it or not.

If it's the language you object to, it's no use judging the 1930s by the yardstick of today's PC thought-crimes...

And some women certainly in the 1930s had more time on their hands to indulge in local gossip.

And it wasn't only women who were against Wallace.

Wallace is relating his experience through his eyes. The low esteem in which he holds women is clear both in the language he uses and what he says. You are right that it was not only women who were against Wallace, but it is women for whom he reserves his disdain. I appreciate the thirties were a different time and different norms prevailed, but still shocking to see it laid bare so unapologetically. Particularly by a scientific and educated man.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was probably still in the lock or on a hook next to the door. That's where mine usually is, and most people I know do the same.

Yes that’s possible Eten.

[RodCrosby]

Wallace is relating his experience through his eyes. The low esteem in which he holds women is clear both in the language he uses and what he says. You are right that it was not only women who were against Wallace, but it is women for whom he reserves his disdain. I appreciate the thirties were a different time and different norms prevailed, but still shocking to see it laid bare so unapologetically. Particularly by a scientific and educated man.

Frankly I think you're cherry-picking, unconsciously or not. Wallace makes clear his love for his wife, and respect for women in general, within the norms of 1930s England.

The whole tenor of his story is why some women have led him to re-evaluate the ideals that he had held to for the whole of his life, until that point...

And the one sympathetic character in the narrative is a woman, also the subject of unfounded gossip from other women...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll certainly stand corrected but didn’t Wallace’s sister-in-law say that William was rather condescending towards Julia?

[etenguy]

Frankly I think you're cherry-picking, unconsciously or not. Wallace makes clear his love for his wife, and respect for women in general, within the norms of 1930s England.

The whole tenor of his story is why some women have led him to re-evaluate the ideals that he had held to for the whole of his life, until that point...

And the one sympathetic character in the narrative is a woman, also the subject of unfounded gossip from other women...

I guess we take different things from the article, but the way the women are described (evil-tongued - poisonous) is not expanded to men. Not to mention the headline -'Women are my worst enemy'. But it is perhaps a pointless argument since these are not Wallace's words but that of a journalist interpreting what he has been told and presenting in a way to catch people's attention - the click bait of the 1930s.

[RodCrosby]

It's a fair point.

John Bull was probably the equivalent of today's The Sun in the UK, or National Enquirer in the US...

It was owned by Horatio Bottomley for many years, which says a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Bottomley

[RodCrosby]

I’ll certainly stand corrected but didn’t Wallace’s sister-in-law say that William was rather condescending towards Julia?

Why not read a bit more, then come back and tell us what you know, instead of what you don't know?

[etenguy]

It's a fair point.

John Bull was probably the equivalent of today's The Sun in the UK, or National Enquirer in the US...

Actually, at first I thought this article was written to elicit sympathy for Wallace, but I can't think of a worse headline than 'Women are my worst enemy' for someone who people were speculating about whether or not he killed a woman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why not read a bit more, then come back and tell us what you know, instead of what you don't know?

I’m not rising to your arrogance Rod. I’ve already shown on this thread what kind of man you are. There’s no need for me to say more.