Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Take no notice of this malicious rubbish.

Antony and I are in constant communication about everything, including the antics of several members of this forum, one of whom is no longer around...

The guy you're talking to wasted acreage of the other thread screeching that the notion my theory would be published by Antony [never mind endorsed] was a pack of lies...

Rhymes with knoll...

More twisting. Rod never once mentioned being published in Antony’s book. He led us to believe that it was his own book that was coming out.

And the ‘malicious’ comment?

Well, I think the selection of quotes from Rod that I posted are evidence enough. I didn’t make them up. Anyone can check for themselves.

Ask yourselves this - AS is no longer here. I’m still here and am happily exchanging emails with Antony.

So why isn’t Antony on here debating about his own book? He clearly has no issue with me.

[etenguy]

To avoid confusion, let's just work through a) first.
Then we can look at b)

So the coins were on the floor, near the hearth, and the cash-box was replaced.

What does that suggest, purely from the standpoint of a)?

It suggests to me they likely came from the cash box. Perhaps Julia disturbed the accomplice, he dropped the coins, she began to make a noise he chased her to the parlour where he killed her. he forgot about them after the murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, what scenario best fits the crime scene, bearing in mind Mrs. Johnston's testimony and John Parkes's detailed recollection?

Clearly that it was a murder staged to look like a robbery. Why would a sneak thief, expecting a wad of cash but ending up with £4 to be split between two, not search Julia’s bag as an obvious place where there might be cash? Why did he ruffle the bedclothes and throw 2 pillows into the fireplace and yet not bother rifling the drawers for cash? Why didn’t he bother with any of Julia’s jewellery? Why pull off the drawer of one random cupboard and then not take any of the photographic equipment inside? Why, when he would have worn gloves and used a weapon from inside the house, would he pointlessly take the bloodied weapon away with him? Why would he bother turning the lights out?

How can you keep ignoring these facts or keep trying to explain them away by nonsense like ‘he panicked?’

[Herlock Sholmes]

It suggests to me they likely came from the cash box. Perhaps Julia disturbed the accomplice, he dropped the coins, she began to make a noise he chased her to the parlour where he killed her. he forgot about them after the murder.

It’s asking a lot seeing as he returned the cash box to the shelf. This doesn’t point to being caught in the act. Also, if he chased her mightn’t we have expected a scream or two? Nothing was heard though.

[RodCrosby]

(I think it's accepted the coins came from the cash-box. No other plausible explanation was ever suggested. It's taken as "read")

It suggests to me they likely came from the cash box. Perhaps Julia disturbed the accomplice, he dropped the coins, she began to make a noise he chased her to the parlour where he killed her. he forgot about them after the murder.

Possible...

But that doesn't really explain the mackintosh, nor really the neatly replaced cash-box.

[etenguy]

(I think it's accepted the coins came from the cash-box. No other plausible explanation was ever suggested. It's taken as "read")



Possible...

But that doesn't really explain the mackintosh, nor really the neatly replaced cash-box.

It depends when she disturbed him. If it was as he replaced the cash box the coins would have fallen from his hand.

Julia may or may not have screamed - maybe she turned and run.

This is all speculation, and it would mean either Julia was wearing the mackintosh - but can't think why - or the accomplice used the mackintosh for some reason after killing Julia.

[RodCrosby]

I think you're close - but maybe a slight change in the order of events is more plausible?

For example, what do we know about Julia's habits and needs?

[etenguy]

I think you're close - but maybe a slight change in the order of events is more plausible?

For example, what do we know about Julia's habits and needs?

Well if she disturbed him when he was taking the cash box down, the coins could have fallen but he wouldn't have gone back to put the cash box back.

So the other reversal would be that he killed her first, then took the money, but there would be no reason for him not to simply pick up the coins he dropped.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It depends when she disturbed him. If it was as he replaced the cash box the coins would have fallen from his hand.

Julia may or may not have screamed - maybe she turned and run.

This is all speculation, and it would mean either Julia was wearing the mackintosh - but can't think why - or the accomplice used the mackintosh for some reason after killing Julia.

Or very simply Eten, Wallace used the mackintosh to protect himself from blood spatter.

[harry]

Herlock,
Insults do not worry me,but like you I feel it's unnecessary.Would have been better if my points had been answered in a decent way.We can excuse Rod though,his deformity,his head is grossly oversized in relation to the rest of his body,is a hard burden to bear.


None of what I have written is without confirmation.I think my last point,that Oliver the defense counsel remarking that the evidence of guilt was equal to that of innocence,taken from official records,is sufficient in itself to show that Wallace was not unfairly treated by the police or jury.

[etenguy]

Or very simply Eten, Wallace used the mackintosh to protect himself from blood spatter.

Yes, indeed. Just speculating the alternative at the moment. A problem I have with Wallace wearing the mackintosh to protect him from blood splatters is it wouldn't cover him completely and given the violence and blood splatters he would have been lucky not to get any on him.

[moste]

Yes, indeed. Just speculating the alternative at the moment. A problem I have with Wallace wearing the mackintosh to protect him from blood splatters is it wouldn't cover him completely and given the violence and blood splatters he would have been lucky not to get any on him.

If a person had a considerable amount of blood on their hands etc. Then washed them in the sink being careful to wash all around the sink , then left the water running to make sure the pipes and drains were thoroughly flushed, I would imagine after say 2 or 3 minutes there would be no trace of blood left for forensics of the day to find. What do you think?

[RodCrosby]

Herlock,
Insults do not worry me,but like you I feel it's unnecessary.Would have been better if my points had been answered in a decent way.We can excuse Rod though,his deformity,his head is grossly oversized in relation to the rest of his body,is a hard burden to bear.


None of what I have written is without confirmation.I think my last point,that Oliver the defense counsel remarking that the evidence of guilt was equal to that of innocence,taken from official records,is sufficient in itself to show that Wallace was not unfairly treated by the police or jury.

They were answered decently and repeatedly, chapter and verse. You chose to ignore, or not understand, and keep harping on your pet, wrong-headed beliefs.

I don't enjoy telling anyone this, but ultimately it must be done - if you can't take a hint - for the sake of the sanity of the thread.

The law in 1931 did not permit the Court of Appeal to overturn a Jury's verdict, unless the circumstances were wholly exceptional. No evidence whatsoever, or (perhaps) no evidence upon which any reasonable jury could reach a verdict of guilty, were the only grounds.

If there was some evidence, the Appeal Court would not intervene, whatever they privately thought. They were not set to be a 13th Juror.

As for what Oliver KC said, consider two simple hypothetical cases:

A: accused husband is last to see her alive, and first to find her dead, and that is the whole of the evidence.
So the whole of the evidence is as consistent with both guilt and innocence. The Court of Appeal would intervene, if a jury returned a verdict of guilty on such evidence.

B: accused had 4 witnesses placing him 200 miles away at the time of the crime, although the victim and 2 others placed him at the scene of the crime, or nearby. In 1931 the Court of Appeal would NOT intervene to displace a Jury's guilty verdict, because there was evidence upon which a Jury could properly convict. It depended entirely upon who the Jury believed, and the Appeal Court, not having seen the witnesses, could not possibly "second-guess" the Jury's reasoning. It was suffice to say the verdict was not unreasonable, and it was supported by the evidence...

[moste]

Nobody has come up with this hypothesis

How about this possibility.
(Fill in the gaps yourselves ), Wallace leaves his wife just as he said he did ,was witnessed by all and sundry on his tram trip Is then picked up by an accomplice (Parry?)and taken by car back home. Driver waits in the next street while Wallace is murdering his wife,then after about 20 minutes returns Wallace back to the tram stop in Allerton for his public journey home.The distance from a to b is 4 1/2 miles, 15 mins by car. That’s the method. The motive? Here’s where my powerful use of speculation comes in. William Wallace was a latent homosexual, very dangerous thing to indulge in in these days of the rolling century. Julia finds out and is horrifically scarred and mentally tortured by this revelation, and threatens to expose him. ( As I say , fill in the gaps , where and when you need,) Evidence ? You don’t need evidence it checks all the boxes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, indeed. Just speculating the alternative at the moment. A problem I have with Wallace wearing the mackintosh to protect him from blood splatters is it wouldn't cover him completely and given the violence and blood splatters he would have been lucky not to get any on him.

A different suggestion could be that Wallace first knocked Julia to the ground with the first blow; killing her or rendering her unconscious or near unconscious. He then draped the mackintosh over his left arm holding it in place with his left hand. He kneels across Julia’s legs and holds his arm up near to his chin so that the mackintosh hangs from his chin to the floor then applies the final blows in his left hand. He then wipes the weapon on the coat and pushes it under Julia’s body. This would only leave his head and his right arm exposed. Blood spatter is obviously random. Who’s to say that he couldn’t have also had a slice of luck too?