Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The above post should read:

“We know that Wallace was in the habit of returning by the front door at night times...”

[Harry D]

3. It’s often pointed out as counting against Wallace’s guilt that the police never found the murder weapon despite searching Wallace’s route. If Wallace had killed Julia on his return to Wolverton Street it would have been near impossible for him to have hidden the weapon so successfully that the police didn’t find it.

Out of interest, how thoroughly was the house searched? No hidden floorboards or compartments he could have stashed the weapon in?

[etenguy]

Three objections to Wallace having killed Julia on his return from MGE:

1. Wallace would have taken a big risk of being spotted returning early by a neighbour. All it would have taken was someone passing him in the street or someone looking out of a window.

2. There is far more chance of a taxi driver remembering a passenger than a tram conductor (who might have had 100’s of passengers during his shift.) All it would have taken was the taxi driver to have thought “I picked up a man near Menlove Gardens that night and dropped him near to Wolverton Street.”

3. It’s often pointed out as counting against Wallace’s guilt that the police never found the murder weapon despite searching Wallace’s route. If Wallace had killed Julia on his return to Wolverton Street it would have been near impossible for him to have hidden the weapon so successfully that the police didn’t find it.

Indeed, and a number of other reasons too. If Wallace killed his wife, it is most likely he did it before he left. However, timings make that near impossible. Rereading the paperboy and milk boy evidence, Julia was still alive at near 6.40pm. Wallace would have needed to leave no later than 6.49pm and probably had to leave a little earlier than that as he was no doubt a slower walker than the young policeman they tested with. Even Herlock's abbreviated timeline does not allow for the short time available.

[etenguy]

Out of interest, how thoroughly was the house searched? No hidden floorboards or compartments he could have stashed the weapon in?

Why bother? If he wore gloves, no finger prints. If it was Wallace there would be no reason to hide the weapon. And even if he wasn't wearing gloves - of course his prints would be on articles in his home.

If it was Rod's theory of Parry and an accomplice - the murder wasn't planned and the killer probably wasn't wearing gloves. He would have a reason to take the weapon away - especially if his prints were already held by the police on a finger print card.

One for Rod's theory I think.

[moste]

[QUOTE=harry;465961]Was it logical to take a visitor into a cold room,when there was a warm room,the kitchen,with a fire already lit.What was gained?Wallace doesn't give evidence of any anticipated visitors,so a social visit seems out of the question.
If a visitor introduced himself as Qualtrough,then would not Julia expect Wallace to return home early.So warming another room,which would take time,would seem a waste when the kitchen was adequate to transact busines.And any other kind of thief knocking on the door to gain entrance,is so far fetched,it's not worth thinking of.
Kind of odd too,that Julia would need a covering over the shoulders when answering the door,but sought no protection when going out into the open air when Wallace departed.[/QUOTE

Hi Harry.The blame here lies with the Victorian mentality.
My father was born in 1910 ,raised by Victorian parents.
He would invite strangers or acquaintances into the front parlour,(the priest, the rent man etc.) only closer friends good neighbours and family, crossed the threshold of our toasty kitchen.
Going out to see her husband off is only as reported by Wallace, and anyhow he didn't say his wife wasn't wearing a coat.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why bother? If he wore gloves, no finger prints. If it was Wallace there would be no reason to hide the weapon. And even if he wasn't wearing gloves - of course his prints would be on articles in his home.

If it was Rod's theory of Parry and an accomplice - the murder wasn't planned and the killer probably wasn't wearing gloves. He would have a reason to take the weapon away - especially if his prints were already held by the police on a finger print card.

One for Rod's theory I think.

Sorry Eten, I’d say definitely one for Wallace.

Rod’s Accomplice was a sneak-thief who wouldnt have wanted to leave prints therefore he’d have worn gloves. If you read Rod’s theory in full on the other thread he has him wearing gloves. The weapon was from the house as a sneak thief not planning murder wouldn’t have brought his own weapon. Therefore the weapon couldn’t have been connected to the accomplice and so he would have no reason to have taken it away.
Wallace might have felt though that by taking away the weapon that it might simply point to a murderer that brought a weapon with him and then took it away.

[moste]

Sorry Eten, I’d say definitely one for Wallace.

Rod’s Accomplice was a sneak-thief who wouldnt have wanted to leave prints therefore he’d have worn gloves. If you read Rod’s theory in full on the other thread he has him wearing gloves. The weapon was from the house as a sneak thief not planning murder wouldn’t have brought his own weapon. Therefore the weapon couldn’t have been connected to the accomplice and so he would have no reason to have taken it away.
Wallace might have felt though that by taking away the weapon that it might simply point to a murderer that brought a weapon with him and then took it away.

This ‘sneak - thief’ dude, Is it the general consensus that this would be the much reported Anfield burglar of that period?

[Abby Normal]

Sorry Eten, I’d say definitely one for Wallace.

Rod’s Accomplice was a sneak-thief who wouldnt have wanted to leave prints therefore he’d have worn gloves. If you read Rod’s theory in full on the other thread he has him wearing gloves. The weapon was from the house as a sneak thief not planning murder wouldn’t have brought his own weapon. Therefore the weapon couldn’t have been connected to the accomplice and so he would have no reason to have taken it away.
Wallace might have felt though that by taking away the weapon that it might simply point to a murderer that brought a weapon with him and then took it away.

Hi hs
Who was the first to tell police about the missing bar and or poker?
The maid? And when?
Did wallace only mention the missing possible murder weapons after his maid did?

[harry]

Moste,
I write of personnel experience of the 1930's,and I also had victorian parents and grandparents.We always had a consideration for visitors,and for their welfare.Never would we,in the middle of winter,have invted them out of cold night into a cold room,when the kitchen was warm and comfortable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This ‘sneak - thief’ dude, Is it the general consensus that this would be the much reported Anfield burglar of that period?

No. There may be some confusion here but the ‘sneak-thief’ is the accomplice in Rod’s Accomplice theory. As per the theory he gained entry to the house by pretending to be Qualtrough and then stole the cash with the intention of leaving without Julia realising that he’d done so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi hs
Who was the first to tell police about the missing bar and or poker?
The maid? And when?
Did wallace only mention the missing possible murder weapons after his maid did?

Hi Abby,

I believe that it was Sarah Draper first who said that one of the two pokers was missing and also an iron bar which was used for cleaning under the gas fire. When Wallace was asked about this he suggested that Draper must have accidentally thrown the poker out with the ashes and that he knew nothing about an iron bar.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I believe that it was Sarah Draper first who said that one of the two pokers was missing and also an iron bar which was used for cleaning under the gas fire. When Wallace was asked about this he suggested that Draper must have accidentally thrown the poker out with the ashes and that he knew nothing about an iron bar.

Hmmm. Interesting. Very interesting.

Two possible missing murder weapons and wallace playing dumb.

I find it hard to beleive that after finding his wife beaten to death in those circs, this would be his response to these items.

Like a. Your not going to look to see if these items are are around? Especially if they could be murder weapons.
And b. Your not going to know what you have, and whats missing?
And c. Your not going say anything, until after your maid brings it up?

This is A red flag for me.

[moste]

No. There may be some confusion here but the ‘sneak-thief’ is the accomplice in Rod’s Accomplice theory. As per the theory he gained entry to the house by pretending to be Qualtrough and then stole the cash with the intention of leaving without Julia realising that he’d done so.

OK, thanks for that.

Now ,being relatively new to the case and only having read the Wilkes book, and a few dozen back forum pages. I wondered whether Joseph, Derek Wallace has been thoroughly investigated.
I cottoned on to the possibility of his involvement when ,while browsing the photographs in the middle of Roger Wilkes book, 'The Final Verdict'.
I was quite taken by how very alike the two brothers are. With a little effort, Joseph could, wearing his brothers clothes, very easily pass as being him.
A possible scenario could have William at home the whole evening, while Joseph, makes the tram journeys and secures alibis. By 8.00 pm his job is done, and since he lives only a third the distance to M L Gs' than William does, he would be back home by 8 20ish.
William meanwhile, could have killed his wife, then, had around an hour and a half to thoroughly clean himself, maybe a bath, leave the water running for 20 minutes to make sure the drains were well flushed, and prepare everything to simulate a burglary gone wrong, in readiness for the police .Whatever the motive, both brothers would probably have to be equally incensed, and completely motivated.
Apologies if this has been covered before, maybe Joseph was proved to be completely exonerated of any involvement.
PS .Alternatively, Joseph was the one to stay home and do the deed.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hmmm. Interesting. Very interesting.

Like a. Your not going to look to see if these items are are around? Especially if they could be murder weapons.
And b. Your not going to know what you have, and whats missing?
And c. Your not going say anything, until after your maid brings it up?

This is A red flag for me.

Good points, Abby. But to be fair to Wallace:

a) He told the police about Draper (whom they then interviewed immediately).
b) On the night of the murder (and if he was innocent), no one knew whether the weapon was from the house or not. The iron bar (which was only used for cleaning, and hence only Julia and Draper may have used it) became the suspected weapon after (a).

At his trial, Wallace was asked why he said "Whatever have they used?", counsel then stating it was an unnatural question for him to ask (clearly you do not). Yet, in her statement, Florence Johnston said she asked the question.

Draper also told police:
a) On three occasions visitors arrived when she was cleaning - every time the visitor was shown into the front room.
b) She described the Wallaces as devoted who never argued in her presence.

I hope this helps.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good points, Abby. But to be fair to Wallace:

a) He told the police about Draper (whom they then interviewed immediately).
b) On the night of the murder (and if he was innocent), no one knew whether the weapon was from the house or not. The iron bar (which was only used for cleaning, and hence only Julia and Draper may have used it) became the suspected weapon after (a).

At his trial, Wallace was asked why he said "Whatever have they used?", counsel then stating it was an unnatural question for him to ask (clearly you do not). Yet, in her statement, Florence Johnston said she asked the question.

Draper also told police:
a) On three occasions visitors arrived when she was cleaning - every time the visitor was shown into the front room.
b) She described the Wallaces as devoted who never argued in her presence.

I hope this helps.

Just to make a comment on this last point purely because it’s one of my biggest issues with arguments in favour of Wallace’s innocence. It’s the “well they seemed like a happy couple” argument. (And of course I realise that Antony is simply mentioning what Draper said.)

Surely we have to accept, whether we are ‘Wallace was guilty,” “Wallace was innocent” or undecided, that murders have taken place in their thousands of whom people would have said “we’ll we never would have imagined...” Or, “he seemed such a nice bloke,” as they are removing his wife’s body from beneath the patio. I think that the “they appeared to be a devoted couple” is one of the biggest red herrings in the case and it causes people to almost bend over backwards to maintain Wallace’s innocence.

People, especially in those days, didn’t want to ‘air their dirty linen’ in public. They would have wanted to avoid gossip and rumour. Most of the people that ‘knew’ them knew them from occasional meetings or from casual hello’s. If someone came to their house for social reasons they would likely have put on a happy front. A couple like the Johnston’s barely knew them even after ten years. I think that Mrs Johnston had only been inside their house three times (probably during the day time when William was at work.) She didn’t even know Julia’s christian name.

That’s why I say that more weight should be given to Wilson and Curwen. Both professional people. Wilson spent three weeks living with the Wallace’s. She saw them at close hand when guards were down and said that the Wallace’s were not the happy couple that everyone imagined. Curwen raised similar doubts. Alfred Mather was critical of Wallace as a man and yet just because he says something critical we have Rod suggesting that he obviously had some kind of hrudge against Wallace. Something we have no evidence at all for.

The ‘there was no motive’ or the ‘They seemed like a happy couple’ argument are, I’m afraid, next to worthless under these circumstances and should not be used to bolster Wallace’s ‘innocence.’