Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

In the scenario you paint for an unsub, who knew about the chess match but not that takings would be much higher the next day, why did they not simply conduct the burglary on the night of the chess match? They must have been in the area to make the Qualtrough call.

who knows? maybe for there own reasons they could only do It when they did.

when you say area- yes of course-the q call was made from the box near wallace house.

[Abby Normal]

What is the evidence for a visitor?There is none.Had Julia had her arms through the sleeves of the raincoat,it would have meant something,as it is there is no connection of her to the raincoat,except part of it was under her body,and there is more than one explanation of how that could have happened.

and of course you are correct here also-no evidence of a visitor or anyone suspicious about the house.

[Abby Normal]

The staged robbery also seems a little odd in a Wallace scenario, too. Firstly, why target the insurance money? Under this scenario, Wallace hated his wife, not his company (as far as we know) and his accounts were to the penny. Secondly, by targeting the insurance money, suspicion would fall on a small set of close friends and colleagues and him because the location of the cash box was not well known. Thirdly, why not empty his wife's bag on the table and take her money? This would then be consistent with anyone, including an intruder like the Anfield burglar.

Perhaps a counter is that Wallace wanted to frame Parry. But, of course, Wallace could not have known whether Parry had an alibi for the night of the murder - in fact, he did. If this was his plan, it was risky. Another counter might be that Wallace wanted the scene to be consistent with an intruder forcing Julia to reveal the location of the cash box before silencing her. But Wallace obviously thought an intruder who bashed his wife's brains out would be considerate enough to replace the cash box.

If Wallace was guilty, I suggest the robbery and the replacement of the cash box were bad mistakes by him. This would be a little surprising given the time he devoted to other aspects of his crime (the call, the alibi, the disposal of weapon, how to clean up quickly, etc) which he executed flawlessly. One thought I've had is that perhaps Wallace could not find his wife's handbag on the night (it was on her chair under the table) and improvised. Of course, if this is accepted, then you can't also say that the untouched handbag is evidence that there was no intruder like the Accomplice (because why would he find the handbag any more easily than Wallace?)

the police obviously thought it was a staged robbery. but did any of them say specifically what makes it looks like a stged robbery?

ive seen a ton of true crime where police are all over staged robberies and give good reasons why. but I cant see any reasons why this looks like a staged robbery.


to me on the face of it-the motive for the crime is burgalry and murder to get rid of the witness.

[Abby Normal]

A couple or three questions, and sorry if they seem a bit basic to those of you with a far greater knowledge of the case than I:

1] How was Alan Close able to state precisely that he had called at the Wallaces' house at 6.25pm? Had Mrs Wallace on the doorstep mentioned the time to him, as I understand it was later than his usual calls, and this remained in his memory?

2] Do we know for certain that Wallace left the house when he said he did, that is at about 6.45pm? If he did leave at this time, then he would have been there when Alan Close called. Did Alan Close ever suggest that Mr Wallace was also in the house, as well as his wife?

3] Is there any evidence at all that there was animus between Wallace and his wife? From what I've read (not a lot), it would seem that the Wallaces were quite well-educated, talented and rather intellectual in differing ways, and 'did things' together, as in their musical evenings and discussions. Did anyone who knew them ever suggest, let alone testify, that Wallace strongly disliked his wife? Did anyone who knew them suggest or testify that he/she had heard the Wallaces arguing?

4] I've seen it suggested Wallace married Julia for her money, in order to pay off his debts. Is there solid evidence for this? Julia, I understand, was the daughter of a failed Yorkshire farmer who went bankrupt, so if she had any money of her own it probably didn't come from her father. So - had she money of her own? If so, was it ever established and made public just how much? Had she life-insurance?

5] I understand that the police asked Wallace to list the names of any caller or callers whom his wife may have known well enough to let into the house. It seems he named 15 people, including Parry, of whom Wallace admitted he was suspicious, and his sister-in-law Amy, who was apparently something of an odd 'un. Were the other names on this list ever made public?

6] It seems that the 'Anfield Housebreaker' was active at the time of the murder; any evidence that he was also violent?

I hope you guys can help!

Graham

hi graham

ill let others more knowledgable answer these-but the Anfield house breaker was I believe still active, or had been in the recent past. another reason why I leave a relatively large chance for an unsub perp.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A couple or three questions, and sorry if they seem a bit basic to those of you with a far greater knowledge of the case than I:

Hello Graham, very little is straight forward or obvious in this case

1] How was Alan Close able to state precisely that he had called at the Wallaces' house at 6.25pm? Had Mrs Wallace on the doorstep mentioned the time to him, as I understand it was later than his usual calls, and this remained in his memory?

He was later than usual because he had a problem with his bike. Some of his friends said that he’d said that he’d seen Mrs Wallace either between 6.30 and 6.45 or just 6.45. The police re-run his walk with him working on the time from a church clock I think I recall (the clock was shown to be correct) and came to the conclusion that it was earlier rather than later. This has led some to suggest that he was manipulated by the police although there’s no real evidence for this. What we can do though is say that, in general, adults are more time conscious and reliable than children. Mrs Johnston (Wallace’s neighbour) said that her milk was delivered at 6.30 (no one has ever questioned her honesty.) we know from Alan Close that whilst Julia was taking in her milk to fill her jug he went next door to the Johnston’s to deliver her milk so it’s entirely reasonable to say that they received their milk within a minute or so of each other. On the other side, the Holme’s said that they heard the Wallace’s door close at 6.35. At this time it could only have been Close. So, according to the Wallace’s neighbours Close was there between 6.30 and 6.35. Of course we can give or take a minute or two.

2] Do we know for certain that Wallace left the house when he said he did, that is at about 6.45pm? If he did leave at this time, then he would have been there when Alan Close called. Did Alan Close ever suggest that Mr Wallace was also in the house, as well as his wife?

Alan Close never mentioned Mr Wallace and we only have Wallace’s word on the time that he left. But from tests that the police did he couldn’t have left the house later than 6.50 or he wouldn’t have made his first tram.

3] Is there any evidence at all that there was animus between Wallace and his wife? From what I've read (not a lot), it would seem that the Wallaces were quite well-educated, talented and rather intellectual in differing ways, and 'did things' together, as in their musical evenings and discussions. Did anyone who knew them ever suggest, let alone testify, that Wallace strongly disliked his wife? Did anyone who knew them suggest or testify that he/she had heard the Wallaces arguing?

The Wallace’s were generally held to be a contented couple although there were very few that knew them really well. Mrs Johnston for example had only been inside the Wallace’s house 3 times in 10 years and didn’t know Julia’s first name. Although Rod conveniently dismisses them we have Mrs Wilson and Dr Curwen. Eight years before she’d stayed at the Wallace’s home to nurse them through illness. She had no reason to lie and saw them at close hand when guards would have been down. She said that they weren’t a happy couple and all affection was absent. Curwen was also less than complimentary about them. Alfred Mather, a former colleague of William’s said that he was the most soured man that he’d ever met and that he had a bad temper. Rod says that he ‘must’ have had a grudge but of course there’s not a smidgeon of evidence for this. We can’t know of course. The large majority said that they appeared content but we know from experience that things can fester beneath the surface and in those times more than now people were more sensitive of gossip and scandal.

4] I've seen it suggested Wallace married Julia for her money, in order to pay off his debts. Is there solid evidence for this? Julia, I understand, was the daughter of a failed Yorkshire farmer who went bankrupt, so if she had any money of her own it probably didn't come from her father. So - had she money of her own? If so, was it ever established and made public just how much? Had she life-insurance?

There’s no evidence of William ever having debts. Julia had money in an account I believe although I’m unsure how much exactly. I believe that it was £100 +. She was probably insured but I don’t think for any vast amount. Even though the police believedWallace guilty I don’t think that they ever felt that money might have been a motive.

5] I understand that the police asked Wallace to list the names of any caller or callers whom his wife may have known well enough to let into the house. It seems he named 15 people, including Parry, of whom Wallace admitted he was suspicious, and his sister-in-law Amy, who was apparently something of an odd 'un. Were the other names on this list ever made public?

In Wallace’s police statement given on 22.11.31 he named the people who Julia would have admitted: Superintendant Crewe (his superior at the Prudential,) his assistant Mr Wood, Mr J Bamber (Assistant Superintendant,) he then said that employees of the company would have been admitted. Then friends Mr FW Jenkinson and his son Frederick, James Caird, Mr Davis (music teacher) and Mr Hayes (his tailor.) Parry of course and Marsden. I can’t recall his sister-in-law being called odd.

6] It seems that the 'Anfield Housebreaker' was active at the time of the murder; any evidence that he was also violent?

I’m unsure on that one Graham. Something tells me that he wasn’t violent though. I could be wrong though.

I hope you guys can help!

Graham

Hope that helped Graham

[Herlock Sholmes]

the police obviously thought it was a staged robbery. but did any of them say specifically what makes it looks like a stged robbery?

ive seen a ton of true crime where police are all over staged robberies and give good reasons why. but I cant see any reasons why this looks like a staged robbery.


to me on the face of it-the motive for the crime is burgalry and murder to get rid of the witness.

I think that the issue for those on the Guilty Wallace side is that the haul from the robbery was so poor, just £4, and yet our man made no real effort to look for cash or valuables elsewhere. There was money in Julia’s bag (although not much) and Julia had jewellery. Surely a thief would have ransacked a few drawers in his search. He does none of these simple things and yet he pulls the door off a random cupboard then takes nothing.

Also, we have to ask why a sneak-thief, for whom being recognised was par-for-the-course, would have killed Julia when he could have just run and nothing would have changed. By the time that he’d police could have gotten there he’d have been miles away. Neither neighbours reported hearing Julia scream or even call out. No commotion at all. It’s difficult to see what this frail 70 year old could have done to panic this man enough into killing her - and in such an unnecessarily brutal manner.

[moste]

Hi Graham

1] How was Alan Close able to state precisely that he had called at the Wallaces' house at 6.25pm? Had Mrs Wallace on the doorstep mentioned the time to him, as I understand it was later than his usual calls, and this remained in his memory?
In court, in cross questioning Close was almost cajoled by Roland Oliver, into stating the exact time as 6 45, however Close would have none of it .He noted the time by the church clock nearby, that it was 6 25 , he went on to pick up more cans of milk from the dairy then proceeded on his way. When hard pressed and under considerable duress, he stuck to his guns,' It was between 6 30 and 6 45! (not the answer hoped for by some)All as per 'Roger Wilkes book.

[Graham]

Thank you, Moste. I appreciate that.

Graham

[Graham]

Thank you, Herlock. Will have more to say later.

Graham

[moste]

6] It seems that the 'Anfield Housebreaker' was active at the time of the murder; any evidence that he was also violent?

Another biggy for me would be 'Was there further burglaries after the murder by the so called Anfield burglar'?

[Graham]

6] It seems that the 'Anfield Housebreaker' was active at the time of the murder; any evidence that he was also violent?

Another biggy for me would be 'Was there further burglaries after the murder by the so called Anfield burglar'?

Thanks, Moste. I did ask these questions some time ago but no response. I would have to say that it's highly unlikely even a desperate house-breaker would resort to the kind of violence meted out to poor Julia. But - you never know.

Graham

[Graham]

Not having seen a transcript of the trial, I wonder if Alan Close was asked anything about whether he thought Wallace was at home when he called. I'd have thought such questioning would have been fairly crucial with regard to Wallace's description of the events of that evening.

The Wallace’s were generally held to be a contented couple although there were very few that knew them really well. Mrs Johnston for example had only been inside the Wallace’s house 3 times in 10 years and didn’t know Julia’s first name. Although Rod conveniently dismisses them we have Mrs Wilson and Dr Curwen. Eight years before she’d stayed at the Wallace’s home to nurse them through illness. She had no reason to lie and saw them at close hand when guards would have been down. She said that they weren’t a happy couple and all affection was absent. Curwen was also less than complimentary about them. Alfred Mather, a former colleague of William’s said that he was the most soured man that he’d ever met and that he had a bad temper. Rod says that he ‘must’ have had a grudge but of course there’s not a smidgeon of evidence for this. We can’t know of course. The large majority said that they appeared content but we know from experience that things can fester beneath the surface and in those times more than now people were more sensitive of gossip and scandal.

I don't think the fact that their neighbours had so very rarely been inside the wallaces' house is really unusual for the times. My own parents had hardly ever been inside their near-neighbours' houses. That's how it was back then - privacy ruled.

I've read that various witnesses were derogatory about the Wallaces' relationship, but married life isn't always a bed of roses. And prolonged illness does tend to make one somewhat ratty, as I know only too well. I don't think it's really all that relevant that Wallace had a bad temper and was 'soured' - he wouldn't be on his own in that respect. If it is suggested that Wallace harboured hatred for his wife, I would like very much to learn the reason why.

There’s no evidence of William ever having debts. Julia had money in an account I believe although I’m unsure how much exactly. I believe that it was £100 +. She was probably insured but I don’t think for any vast amount. Even though the police believedWallace guilty I don’t think that they ever felt that money might have been a motive.

Yes, I've only seen a suggestion that Wallace was in debt; no hard evidence. And I don't have the impression that the Wallaces, although by no means well off, were scratting around for shillings to pay the rent.

I can’t recall his sister-in-law being called odd.

Colin Wilson has it that an amateur investigator called Kenneth Gunnell discovered that Amy Wallace, William's sister-in-law who was married to his brother Joseph, had lived in Malaya at some stage in her life, and had been a member of a 'flagellation sect'. Yes, well. However, there ain't smoke without fire, some say, so perhaps this claim has some basis in fact. Gunnell went further, and suggested that Amy was William's mistress and that it was she that murdered Julia. I am convinced that this is so far-fetched as to be totally untrue....but again, one never knows what goes on behind a person's oublic image.

Graham

[Harry D]

A valid point I've seen elsewhere is that upon returning home, Wallace never made any reference to the fact the back-gate should've been bolted shut. Even after the fact, Wallace never drew attention to this point. That means either an intruder was admitted by Julia, or they knocked on the front door (unlikely). The other explanation, of course, is that Wallace murdered her and therefore no one could bolt the backgate after him. It was an oversight on his part and the reason he never questioned it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not having seen a transcript of the trial, I wonder if Alan Close was asked anything about whether he thought Wallace was at home when he called. I'd have thought such questioning would have been fairly crucial with regard to Wallace's description of the events of that evening.



I don't think the fact that their neighbours had so very rarely been inside the wallaces' house is really unusual for the times. My own parents had hardly ever been inside their near-neighbours' houses. That's how it was back then - privacy ruled.

I've read that various witnesses were derogatory about the Wallaces' relationship, but married life isn't always a bed of roses. And prolonged illness does tend to make one somewhat ratty, as I know only too well. I don't think it's really all that relevant that Wallace had a bad temper and was 'soured' - he wouldn't be on his own in that respect. If it is suggested that Wallace harboured hatred for his wife, I would like very much to learn the reason why.

No one can give an exact reason for any build up of ill-feeling that might have occurred but, as we all know, these things often remain hidden from all but the couple themselves. People also tend not to show these things in public even more so in days past. It’s unlikely that we will ever have anything concrete to show that the Wallace’s were anything less than content but I genuinely don’t see that as a weighty point against the possibility of William being guilty. For me, pretty much every aspect of the case points overwhelmingly to William, therefore a motive is overwhelmingly likely to have existed. Just my opinion of course.

Yes, I've only seen a suggestion that Wallace was in debt; no hard evidence. And I don't have the impression that the Wallaces, although by no means well off, were scratting around for shillings to pay the rent.

Agreed. They didn’t exactly live an extravagant lifestyle. I think that Wallace once spent a fair bit on a microscope but that’s about it. No cocaine-fuelled orgies at 29 Wolverton Street methinks.

I can’t recall his sister-in-law being called odd.

Colin Wilson has it that an amateur investigator called Kenneth Gunnell discovered that Amy Wallace, William's sister-in-law who was married to his brother Joseph, had lived in Malaya at some stage in her life, and had been a member of a 'flagellation sect'. Yes, well. However, there ain't smoke without fire, some say, so perhaps this claim has some basis in fact. Gunnell went further, and suggested that Amy was William's mistress and that it was she that murdered Julia. I am convinced that this is so far-fetched as to be totally untrue....but again, one never knows what goes on behind a person's oublic
image.

It certain adds colour

Graham

Hi Graham, this is the trial transcript.

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.220695/2015.220695.The-Trial_djvu.txt

[Herlock Sholmes]

A valid point I've seen elsewhere is that upon returning home, Wallace never made any reference to the fact the back-gate should've been bolted shut. Even after the fact, Wallace never drew attention to this point. That means either an intruder was admitted by Julia, or they knocked on the front door (unlikely). The other explanation, of course, is that Wallace murdered her and therefore no one could bolt the backgate after him. It was an oversight on his part and the reason he never questioned it.

Hi Harry,

The fact about the back gate is convenient for a Wallace who initially tried to give the impression that there was still someone in the house when he got back. Why would a sneak thief bolt the front door when he couldn’t have know that Wallace wouldn’t return via the way that he left - the backdoor?

Wallace on initially trying the front door - couldn’t get in - then the backdoor - even with a faulty lock this was the first time that Wallace had been unable to get in (convenient) - then back to the front - then the back.

The unbolted gate gave Wallace the opportunity of hinting that, when he returned to the front door the intruder left via the backdoor and gate before the Johnston’s appeared.

In fairness of course you could just say that an intruder left by the backdoor.