Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I didn't have him kneeling, certainly not for the first blow. I haven't seen the autopsy report, it may provide some insights into the attack angle etc..

If he was kneeling, protection would have been fuller.

Hi Eten,

We cant know any of this of course and we could all be wrong but it’s been my suggestion that Wallace struck the first blow around the same time that Julia handed him the mackintosh in front of the fire. Wallace then kneeled at the side of Julia or across her legs and with the mackintosh over his left arm, hanging from his mouth to the floor, administered the final blows. Then he wiped the weapon on the mackintosh and pushed it beneath Julia’sbody withthe effect of smearing the signs of blood spatter.

[ColdCaseJury]

With Wallace kneeling a full length mackintosh would easily reach the three feet or so from his mouth to the carpet. All that would be in the line of fire would have been the top two thirds of his head and his moving right arm.

As I picture the scene, HS, Wallace is kneeling and using the mackintosh a bit like a riot shield, from ground to face, to guard against blood splatter. If so, two comments.

a) I find it difficult to believe that Wallace would have been able to adopt this stance for the first blow, even if Julia were seated. If she was standing, it would seem extremely difficult, wouldn't you agree?

b) How did the bottom of the mackintosh catch fire? If he was kneeling, it is difficult to see how the bottom draped into the fire; the clays were about 8-12" above the floor and recessed into the fireplace.

I suggest the mackintosh was (a) being worn - either by Wallace (and the bottom draped across the hot fire clays) or by Julia, draping it around her shoulders when it fell onto the fire. The burnt portion appears to be consistent with either scenario in my opinion. Or (b) Wallace tried to burn the mackintosh deliberately as alleged by the prosecution.

I think most people think (b) very unlikely. Just one thought, HS. If Wallace was wearing the mackintosh (or used it as a splatter shield) surely he would have strode into the room and would have been positioned in front of his wife, perhaps to the side. To drape the mackintosh into the fire, Wallace would have stood right on the hearth. I find it difficult to see why he would have stood so close to the fire.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Something else occurred to me. It seems that Wallace hadn't been to the chess club since the previous October, so how did the caller know he'd be there on the night he made the call? Or was it just a lucky guess? Or what?

G

Hello Graham,

From memory I think that Wallace hadn’t been to the club for a couple of weeks rather than longer.

Rod’s Accomplice theory has Parry in Breck Road watching Wallace leave for the club then going to make the call. For me there are 2 issues with this. 1. How many times would Parry have been prepared to wait until Wallace actually went to the club? Especially if, as has been suggested, he was desperate for cash. Would he have been prepared to sit there for two or even three weeks say until he could finally say to his accomplice “ok, we’re on for tomorrow night.” How annoyed would he have been if the accomplice had said “tomorrow? Sorry mate I can’t make it tomorrow!”

And 2. What if Wallace had left the house via the front door, gone through the estate and up onto Lower Breck Road? Parry wouldn’t have known that Wallace was off to the club because he wouldn’t have seen him,unless he knew for a fact that Wallace always caught the tram in Breck Road Of course which I cant say is impossible but it’s hard to see how Wallace’s route to the club might have come up in conversation.

Of course I have to add that only one person knew for a fact that he was going to the club that night.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I picture the scene, HS, Wallace is kneeling and using the mackintosh a bit like a riot shield, from ground to face, to guard against blood splatter. If so, two comments.

a) I find it difficult to believe that Wallace would have been able to adopt this stance for the first blow, even if Julia were seated. If she was standing, it would seem extremely difficult, wouldn't you agree?

b) How did the bottom of the mackintosh catch fire? If he was kneeling, it is difficult to see how the bottom draped into the fire; the clays were about 8-12" above the floor and recessed into the fireplace.

I suggest the mackintosh was (a) being worn - either by Wallace (and the bottom draped across the hot fire clays) or by Julia, draping it around her shoulders when it fell onto the fire. The burnt portion appears to be consistent with either scenario in my opinion. Or (b) Wallace tried to burn the mackintosh deliberately as alleged by the prosecution.

I think most people think (b) very unlikely. Just one thought, HS. If Wallace was wearing the mackintosh (or used it as a splatter shield) surely he would have strode into the room and would have been positioned in front of his wife, perhaps to the side. To drape the mackintosh into the fire, Wallace would have stood right on the hearth. I find it difficult to see why he would have stood so close to the fire.

Hi Antony,

It’s only my suggestion of course but:

Julia closes the front door as Close leaves.
Wallace is in the Parlour at the mirror.
He calls for Julia to bring him his mackintosh as he’s going out.
Julia stands next to Wallace at the fireplace and hands him the mackintosh.
As Wallace bends down to pick up the iron bar the coat accidentally hangs in the fire.
They both put out the fire; Julia skirt gets singed.
Wallace hits Julia with the bar and she falls, unconscious or barely conscious.
Wallace drapes the coat over his left arm.
He kneels near to Julia, and with the mackintosh hanging from the level of his mouth to the floor he administers the remaining blows.

I certainly agree that point b) is unlikely in the extreme.

[etenguy]

As I picture the scene, HS, Wallace is kneeling and using the mackintosh a bit like a riot shield, from ground to face, to guard against blood splatter. If so, two comments.

a) I find it difficult to believe that Wallace would have been able to adopt this stance for the first blow, even if Julia were seated. If she was standing, it would seem extremely difficult, wouldn't you agree?

b) How did the bottom of the mackintosh catch fire? If he was kneeling, it is difficult to see how the bottom draped into the fire; the clays were about 8-12" above the floor and recessed into the fireplace.

I suggest the mackintosh was (a) being worn - either by Wallace (and the bottom draped across the hot fire clays) or by Julia, draping it around her shoulders when it fell onto the fire. The burnt portion appears to be consistent with either scenario in my opinion. Or (b) Wallace tried to burn the mackintosh deliberately as alleged by the prosecution.

I think most people think (b) very unlikely. Just one thought, HS. If Wallace was wearing the mackintosh (or used it as a splatter shield) surely he would have strode into the room and would have been positioned in front of his wife, perhaps to the side. To drape the mackintosh into the fire, Wallace would have stood right on the hearth. I find it difficult to see why he would have stood so close to the fire.

Is it not safe for us to conclude Julia was wearing the mackintosh, at least around her shoulders? I suggest this on the basis that her dress was also singed and it would seem reasonable to infer the dress singeing and mackintosh burning was one event. To have both happen independently seems highly unlikely. If this was the case, the murderer could not be using it as protection from blood splattering.

Edit - posted before I saw HS scenario of the burning - though I don't find two accidental burnings in succession very probable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Antony, perhaps you can answer a question. It’s just one of those small and possibly meaningless points.

On the Monday evening it’s taken that a guilty Wallace caught his tram near to the phone box whereas an innocent Wallace caught the tram in Breck Road near to the junction of Belmont Road.

To get into Breck Road he walked along Richmond Park and then turned right. Why did he walk past two stops - one at the end of Richmond Park, the other at the end of (fingers crossed for my memory here) Pendennis Street?

Where these stops pick up points on the Monday night?

If they were, the only reason that I could come up with for why Wallace might have walked so far on would have been if the stop near Belont Road was a point where the fair dropped and so Wallace was trying to save a bit of cash? Was that the case do you know?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is it not safe for us to conclude Julia was wearing the mackintosh, at least around her shoulders? I suggest this on the basis that her dress was also singed and it would seem reasonable to infer the dress singeing and mackintosh burning was one event. To have both happen independently seems highly unlikely. If this was the case, the murderer could not be using it as protection from blood splattering.

Edit - posted before I saw HS scenario of the burning - though I don't find two accidental burnings in succession very probable.

If the coat was over her shoulders it’s difficult for me to see how it ended up wedged underneath her? Surely it would have simply fallen to the floor? If that was the case why would the killer bother to push it underneath her?

[etenguy]

Another thought. The fire in the parlour was not on and there is no evidence it had been on. Is it more likely the clothes burning happened in the kitchen with an open fire?

It doesn't really help as either the disturbed burglar pushed her in the kitchen when he was disturbed causing the burning or Wallace started his attack in the kitchen before finishing the murder In the parlour.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another interesting question is why, after he’d discovered the body, did he say to Mrs Johnston “why, whatever was. She doing with her mackintosh and my mackintosh?” Julia was unlikely even to have owned one because William said that he’d never seen her wear a mackintosh.

[Abby Normal]

Is it not safe for us to conclude Julia was wearing the mackintosh, at least around her shoulders? I suggest this on the basis that her dress was also singed and it would seem reasonable to infer the dress singeing and mackintosh burning was one event. To have both happen independently seems highly unlikely. If this was the case, the murderer could not be using it as protection from blood splattering.

Edit - posted before I saw HS scenario of the burning - though I don't find two accidental burnings in succession very probable.

I agree with this

[harry]

What if Julia was stood in front of the fire,holdindg and/ or airing the mackintosh.In my experience it was common to air an article before using it,and quite in order for Wallace to ask Julia to air his mackintosh,as he was going to wear it that evening.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony,

It’s only my suggestion of course but:

Julia closes the front door as Close leaves.
Wallace is in the Parlour at the mirror.
He calls for Julia to bring him his mackintosh as he’s going out.
Julia stands next to Wallace at the fireplace and hands him the mackintosh.
As Wallace bends down to pick up the iron bar the coat accidentally hangs in the fire.
They both put out the fire; Julia skirt gets singed.
Wallace hits Julia with the bar and she falls, unconscious or barely conscious.
Wallace drapes the coat over his left arm.
He kneels near to Julia, and with the mackintosh hanging from the level of his mouth to the floor he administers the remaining blows.

I certainly agree that point b) is unlikely in the extreme.

HS, this is certainly factually coherent (i.e. there's nothing in our general experience to say this could not have happened). But is it plausible (i.e. probable given the specifics of the case)?

The Wallaces only used the front room for guests and musical evenings. Every bit of testimony is consistent with this fact (Draper, Johnson, Wallace) and none is inconsistent. To be clear, the first time Florence Johnston saw the Wallace's kitchen was on the night of the murder - on the other three occasions she called was shown into the front room. So, I would query why Wallace was is in the front room, but it is possible of course.

I would have to agree that the burning of the mackintosh and Julia's skirt are likely to have happened at the same time, but how does Julia singe her skirt? I'm not convinced she would pull the bottom of the mackintosh onto her skirt and she would have to virtually sit on the fire to get it singed directly.

The fact that there is a bloodied mackintosh tucked by his wife's shoulder is consistent with Wallace as the killer. The fact that the bottom of the mackintosh and Julia's skirt have fire damage is surprising, and is best explained, in my view, by claiming Wallace was wearing the mackintosh and Julia fell onto the fire clays after the first blow (that is the scenario I describe in my book, but others are possible like Harry's above - but I'm sure they would have done the airing in the kitchen - the range fire already lit - and not the front room).

To me, the fire damage seems equally plausible to have been caused by Julia wearing the mackintosh around her shoulders and falling on the clays after the first blow before she was pulled off, with perhaps the mackintosh remaining longer in the fire, and hence more badly burnt.

[ColdCaseJury]

The Position of the Body

This is a bit of a puzzler for me.

It appears Julia was initially attacked when she was to the LEFT of the fireplace (this is where all the blood splatter is). Yet, Julia's feet are to the RIGHT of the hearth. How does Julia fall (presumably onto the fire - singed skirt) and how does the killer pull her to be in the position she was found?

To my mind, Julia's feet would have been by the armchair and to the LEFT of the fireplace, even if (and after) the killer had pulled her from the fireplace. To get the feet where they were found, he would have had to have lifted them there for no reason. What am I missing? Help appreciated.

[Graham]

I never saw so much speculation in my life! We are all aware that we will never, ever, know the full truth of this mystery, and OK, it's fun to speculate, but it really gets us nowhere closer to the truth. But do carry on!

Some of you may have come across the Adelaide Bartlett case of 1885, in which Mrs Bartlett was accused of murdering her husband by poison, but because it could not be ascertained precisely how the poison was administered, she was acquitted. But according to some, it was so transparently obvious that she had murdered him, that Sir James Paget, famous medico, publicly stated that now the case is over, she should in the interests of science tell us how she did it! Following his acquittal, seems to me that Wallace said very little at all about his wife's death, at least for the public ear. Even when he knew he was dying, it seems he still stayed tight-lipped (although I believe there was a rumour, unsubstantiated, of a death-bed confession).

HS, re: Wallace's attendance at the Club, according to Edward Winter (Unsolved Chess Mysteries), Wallace was down to play on 24 November, 8 December and 5 January, but had failed to attend on any of these dates.
Whether this implies that Wallace had never visited the Club on other evenings of the week, I don't know, but it certainly seems a little odd that 'Qualtrough' appeared to know that Wallace would be there on Monday 19 January.

Graham

[RodCrosby]

HS, re: Wallace's attendance at the Club, according to Edward Winter (Unsolved Chess Mysteries), Wallace was down to play on 24 November, 8 December and 5 January, but had failed to attend on any of these dates.
Whether this implies that Wallace had never visited the Club on other evenings of the week, I don't know, but it certainly seems a little odd that 'Qualtrough' appeared to know that Wallace would be there on Monday 19 January.

Graham

He is quoting Murphy. I exploded his silly 'analysis' on the other thread.

The Chess Schedule showed merely (at best) which games had been played, not which personalities had been present at the club on any particular day. No-one involved in this shambolic, piffling tournament seemed to be terribly interested in updating these hieroglyphics on the board in any case...

While most authors agree that Wallace had not attended on several of the dates he should have, the direct evidence seems to be elusive.

The schedule was a template for a watch-and-wait plan for Parry & Chum.

Wallace would certainly turn up at some point. The chess club was his long-standing, primary (practically sole) social outlet.

Monday 19th January was the final Monday the plan could have been put into effect. And Wallace turned up...