Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

Only if you are as biased as the Jiggery-Pokery Brigade.

Even the Prosecution had no use for any of this prejudicial rubbish, that only existed inside an alcoholic copper's mind.

The same copper who lied when he wrote that Wallace had asked the Johnstons to wait while he checked the house...

[RodCrosby]

If anyone is interested in James Murphy's book, there are two reasonably-priced copies available...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Murder-Julia-Wallace-James-Murphy/dp/1872568815

Frankly, I wouldn't bother. It's tendentious bunk, with no index...

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi CCJ
Thanks for the response.

a) He told the police about Draper (whom they then interviewed immediately).

of course he would have to tell them about the maid.

b) On the night of the murder (and if he was innocent), no one knew whether the weapon was from the house or not.

and apparently they never did find out-I find it odd (if innocent) that Wallace didn't want to try and find out what was used and if it was his asap.

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).

I don't buy it. he would have known what tools he had around the house-whether he used them a lot or not. and that it was the maid, not him, that first spoke of the missing bar and poker points to consciousness of guilt to me.

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.

I dont think this is an unnatural question to ask at all. it would have been one of the first things to go through my mind. and apparently it was-either by him or Mrs Johnston. which would immediately beg the question-where is it and is it still here somewhere??

Draper also told police:
a) On three occasions visitors arrived when she was cleaning - every time the visitor was shown into the front room.

yup no problem with this-I agree. and it does point to a visitor killer.

b) She described the Wallaces as devoted who never argued in her presence.

I don't place much emphasis on this-who knows what goes on behind closed doors and the evil that lurks in mens hearts.


bottom line-I find it almost inconceivable that he didnt know what tools he had in the house, what was missing, that he didnt take the lead in looking for or pointing out what could have been used.

[etenguy]

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.’

Herlock

The fact is, to all intents and purposes, the Johnstons appeared to the majority of people as a happily married couple. Wallace's journal entries support that reading of their relationship. They had a shared interest in music and they appear to be content with their own company.

Of course, no-one ever knows what goes on behind closed doors, but based on the evidence, it is absolutely correct to say Wallace had no KNOWN motive.

[etenguy]

Hi CCJ
Thanks for the response.

of course he would have to tell them about the maid.

and apparently they never did find out-I find it odd (if innocent) that Wallace didn't want to try and find out what was used and if it was his asap.

I would suggest his grief at the loss of his life partner would far out weigh the mechanics of the murder, which he might naturally leave to the police to determine.

I don't buy it. he would have known what tools he had around the house-whether he used them a lot or not. and that it was the maid, not him, that first spoke of the missing bar and poker points to consciousness of guilt to me.

I can't talk for Wallace, but I would have no idea what cleaning tools we have in the house. Not very new man, I know, but the truth.

I dont think this is an unnatural question to ask at all. it would have been one of the first things to go through my mind. and apparently it was-either by him or Mrs Johnston. which would immediately beg the question-where is it and is it still here somewhere??

yup no problem with this-I agree. and it does point to a visitor killer.

I don't place much emphasis on this-who knows what goes on behind closed doors and the evil that lurks in mens hearts.

bottom line-I find it almost inconceivable that he didnt know what tools he had in the house, what was missing, that he didnt take the lead in looking for or pointing out what could have been used.

As I mention above and to Herlock. There is no KNOWN motive for Wallace (all the evidence points to a happy couple) and I can easily believe he did not know what cleaning tools were in his house - certainly I do not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=RodCrosby;466182]Only if you are as biased as the Jiggery-Pokery Brigade.

Even the Prosecution had no use for any of this prejudicial rubbish, that only existed inside an alcoholic copper's mind.

The same copper who lied when he wrote that Wallace had asked the Johnstons to wait while he checked the house...[/QUOTE]

And like Wallace who lied to Caird and Beattie about being cleared by the police. And like Wallace who wriggled and then admitted that he’d ‘suspected’ that there was someone inside the house.

Your desperation shows as ever.

I’ll stick to the facts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If anyone is interested in James Murphy's book, there are two reasonably-priced copies available...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Murder-Julia-Wallace-James-Murphy/dp/1872568815

Frankly, I wouldn't bother. It's tendentious bunk, with no index...

Keep digging Rodders. There’s no index in Antony’s book either.

Murphy’s Is the best book on the crime and guess what....he gets the culprit right.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Antony’s Quote:

Draper also told police:
a) On three occasions visitors arrived when she was cleaning - every time the visitor was shown into the front room.

Abby
yup no problem with this-I agree. and it does point to a visitor killer.

I have to disagree. Are we suggesting that William couldn’t have gone into the Parlour? This sounds like a bad syllogism to me: visitors would be shown into the Parlour; the murder took place in the Parlour; therefore the murderer was a visitor?

We’re not suggesting this are we?

Sounds like Rod-thinking to me.

[RodCrosby]

Wallace:-
Motive/Gain: None apparent
Plan:
"so intrinsically difficult of acceptance..." [Abrahams]
"so fantastically improbable that it can be equated with the impossible..." [Brophy]
Risk: His Life (a life that in any case didn't seem worth living to Wallace, once his ordeal was over)
Evidence: None, only prejudice and fancy

Parry & Chum:-
Motive/Gain: potentially £3000 each in modern money
Plan:
"Human nature is very strange. You may have a man send a bogus message, and having sent the bogus message, even if he did not see the prisoner actually leave the house, he might go to the house, ring the bell or knock at the door, and be admitted by Mrs. Wallace. If she had been told, as the prisoner said, that the prisoner was seeking an interview with Qualtrough, and if he was admitted, he would soon find out where the prisoner was, and find out that he was not in the house : on the other hand, if he found he was in the house he could go away..." [Justice Wright]
Risk: tuppence for a phone call [which Parry scammed back from the operator!] and the slight risk of being identified later, which all criminals take.
Evidence: Plenty

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock

The fact is, to all intents and purposes, the Johnstons appeared to the majority of people as a happily married couple. Wallace's journal entries support that reading of their relationship. They had a shared interest in music and they appear to be content with their own company.

Of course, no-one ever knows what goes on behind closed doors, but based on the evidence, it is absolutely correct to say Wallace had no KNOWN motive.

Hi Eten,

I’d also say that it’s irrelevant.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wallace:-
Motive/Gain: None apparent. Irrelevant but there’s enough to suggest that the Wallace’s marriage might not have been as content as they appeared on the surface.
Plan:
"so intrinsically difficult of acceptance..." [Abrahams]

Nonsense. The plan was only certain of success if Wallace had planned it. For anyone else it would be reliant on slabs of luck.

"so fantastically improbable that it can be equated with the impossible..." [Brophy]

More nonsense. If the plan was improbable for Wallace then it’s improbable for anyone else.

Risk: His Life (a life that in any case didn't seem worth living to Wallace, once his ordeal was over)

His last few years in freedom from the millstone around his neck that was the 70 years old ‘Granny’ Wallace.

Evidence: None, only prejudice and fancy

Every aspect of this case points to Wallace over a man with a cast-iron alibi (Parry) And a phantom accomplice with a ludicrous scenario.

Parry & Chum:-
Motive/Gain: potentially £3000 each in modern money

And after the massive disappointment of finding £4 did the accomplice bother searching for cash elsewhere or valuables. No, apparently he just said “whoopie £4” and left. Yeah right.

Plan:
"Human nature is very strange. You may have a man send a bogus message, and having sent the bogus message, even if he did not see the prisoner actually leave the house, he might go to the house, ring the bell or knock at the door, and be admitted by Mrs. Wallace. If she had been told, as the prisoner said, that the prisoner was seeking an interview with Qualtrough, and if he was admitted, he would soon find out where the prisoner was, and find out that he was not in the house : on the other hand, if he found he was in the house he could go away..." [Justice Wright]

Rod and his utterly pointless quotes. Avoids having to defend the indefensible I suppose.

Risk: tuppence for a phone call [which Parry scammed back from the operator!] and the slight risk of being identified later, which all criminals take.

Err, unnecessarily coughing up to the crime to someone that didn’t like him? Pointlessly walking away with a bloodied weapon. The risk of being seen or heard by neighbours whilst he explains the ****-up to Julia on the doorstep.

Evidence: Plenty Zero. Zilch.

I didn’t think that you could get worse Rodders.

[ColdCaseJury]

Keep digging Rodders. There’s no index in Antony’s book either.

Murphy’s Is the best book on the crime and guess what....he gets the culprit right.

Hi HS, I have no problem with Murphy's book apart from the fact he sharpened and levelled. He ignored the fact that Parry lied about his whereabouts at the time of the call and eliminated Parry as the caller by accepting Josephine Lloyd's estimate of the time he arrived at her house and ignored Lily's statement, which was consistent with Parry making the call. He also failed to include MacFall's actual post mortem report (the one in the police file) which significantly differed from MacFall's trial testimony and the one presented in his book.

[RodCrosby]

If disinformation and misrepresentation don't work, try it in red ink...

You never know...

[Abby Normal]

I would suggest his grief at the loss of his life partner would far out weigh the mechanics of the murder, which he might naturally leave to the police to determine.



I can't talk for Wallace, but I would have no idea what cleaning tools we have in the house. Not very new man, I know, but the truth.



As I mention above and to Herlock. There is no KNOWN motive for Wallace (all the evidence points to a happy couple) and I can easily believe he did not know what cleaning tools were in his house - certainly I do not.

Hi Eten

would suggest his grief at the loss of his life partner would far out weigh the mechanics of the murder, which he might naturally leave to the police to determine.

Perhaps. but i would think that once he got over his initial shock and grief, If not very soon after, perhaps later that night or the next morning-in terms of trying to come to terms with what happened-he would be trying to think who and how it happened-including what was used to kill her. its a natural reaction methinks.

I can't talk for Wallace, but I would have no idea what cleaning tools we have in the house. Not very new man, I know, but the truth.

were not talking about sponges and brushes though-they are heavy metal tools-large enough to bludgeon someone. both the bar and the poker-fire tools no less. no matter how little he used them-he would've known about them. and indeed he did- but only after his maid brought them up. and came up with a pretty lame excuse about them and why they were missing.

wouldnt a natural response be-the killer must have taken them or one of them away?

As I mention above and to Herlock. There is no KNOWN motive for Wallace (all the evidence points to a happy couple) and I can easily believe he did not know what cleaning tools were in his house - certainly I do not.

im having a hard time buying it-It was a small house, small family, no kids. these tools were probably ubiquitous to the fire place/stoves/heating-especially back then.

[RodCrosby]

It was 1931, Abby.
Like it or not, domestic duties were women's work in those days...
And WHW was even one step removed, there being a charwoman.