Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[etenguy]

I think that most people accept that for the killer to have remained relatively blood free he would have had to have taken precautions of some kind (possibly/probably involving the mackintosh in some way.) Possibly then followed by some kind of clean up (maybe just hands?) A sneak thief however, killing on the spur of the moment, would have taken no such precautions and certainly wouldn’t have cleaned up and so blood contamination would have been unavoidable.

This is a reasonable assumption but there two issues that arise:

a) as with the JtR murders, lots of blood does not necessarily mean the killer is overly contaminated with blood.
b) I have not seen detailed reports of the crime scene, but I'm not aware of any comment which suggests the blood splatter was interrupted by an object, like the killer. It may be the blood splatter was in the opposite direction of the killer.

It seems unlikely that the killer would then have taken off the mittens and risked leaving prints. And, as I said earlier, he would have had no reason at all to do so. He touched the gas jets, the back door, the gate not to mention an other surfaces and any that he might have rubbed up against when walking around the house (especially in the dark after inexplicably turning off the gas jets.) Our Accomplice would have had no reason for caution when it came to leaving blood traces, drops, smears, smudges or whatever.

As above, it would depend on how much blood had been splattered onto the killer.

When we combine this with the fact that the killer removed the weapon which he had absolutely no need to as it couldn’t have been connected to him in any way this surely has to point away from anyone other than Wallace.

There was no reason for either Wallace or the accomplice to remove the murder weapon. Neither could be associated with the weapon as a weapon - except possibly the accomplice if he was worried about leaving finger prints behind.

And I am confused here - it was stated by the maid that both the poker and an iron bar were missing. Presumably one of these, but not both, was the murder weapon (but we don't know for sure). If one of these was the weapon, why were both missing?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. There was no reason for either Wallace or the accomplice to remove the murder weapon. Neither could be associated with the weapon as a weapon - except possibly the accomplice if he was worried about leaving finger prints behind.

But the murder of his wife, committed in his own home with a piece of household equipment would point more to Wallace than anyone else? By taking the weapon away Wallace would have been signalling to the police that the killer brought his own weapon with him. Far less than an outside killer would take away a weapon from inside the house. If the accomplice was wearing gloves (or actually mittens) then prints wouldn’t have been an issue.

[OneRound]

I can see Wallace, or any assailant locking both doors as a security measure, whereby there was no possible chance of being surprised by anyone.(remember, Johnston's had a key) For me the locking of both doors points directly at a preplanned murder.
The blooded car and glove box mitten smacks of someone with an axe to grind, possibly a very jealous and hateful axe!
I myself can not get my head around the whole 'Wallace lost in Allerton sequence of events.' the business of 'can someone help me with a directory ' and purposely involving other people in his plight, all pure poppycock.
Any agent that is employed in Wallace's capacity, traversing streets, taking on new clients and arranging meetings with prospective customers etc. Is going to have a map of Liverpool! if not carried on his person, then a directory at his home. If there is any argument to the contrary to this likelihood, then I would suggest there would almost certainly have been a large chart in the offices of the Prudential , for quick reference for any of the number of sales people at the company.
And further, if none of above applies , Wallace had all the next day to avail himself as to the exact location of 25 Menlove gardens east.

Hi Moste - yep, strongish pointers there for me too that Wallace was trying to contrive an alibi. It still leaves open though whether he had sufficient time to kill Julia himself and, if he did, what he did with the murder weapon and how he managed to avoid blood splatter. Those sort of things prompted my #1040 post of 24 December speculating about the possibility of Wallace having an accomplice who actually killed his wife. Grateful for any thoughts on that.

Thanks,
One Round

[etenguy]

But the murder of his wife, committed in his own home with a piece of household equipment would point more to Wallace than anyone else? By taking the weapon away Wallace would have been signalling to the police that the killer brought his own weapon with him. Far less than an outside killer would take away a weapon from inside the house. If the accomplice was wearing gloves (or actually mittens) then prints wouldn’t have been an issue.

It is possible that Wallace might have thought that way, but I'm not sure the logic really holds. A better scenario to deflect would be to make it look like an intruder, caught in the act, picks up a weapon to attack. He would probably have wanted to stage a forced entry as well. Much more convincing than just removing the murder weapon - and whoever the killer was, knew how to plan.

[OneRound]

Hi Eten,

Maybe Wallace just struck her as she was about to hand him the mackintosh and she and the mackintosh fell onto the fire grate causing the two burnings simultaneously?

...

Hi Herlock and all - could part of Julia's clothing have caught fire as she fell into the grate and the murderer then grabbed the mackintosh from wherever it was and used it to extinguish what was burning before leaving it under what had been alight? If her clothes were on fire at all, her attacker would want to extinguish it and minimise the chances of himself being burnt.

Best regards,
One Round

[moste]

Hi Moste - yep, strongish pointers there for me too that Wallace was trying to contrive an alibi. It still leaves open though whether he had sufficient time to kill Julia himself and, if he did, what he did with the murder weapon and how he managed to avoid blood splatter. Those sort of things prompted my #1040 post of 24 December speculating about the possibility of Wallace having an accomplice who actually killed his wife. Grateful for any thoughts on that.

Thanks,
One Round

An accomplice, possibly. I would love to see the date of Joseph Wallace's port of entry stamp in his passport.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock and all - could part of Julia's clothing have caught fire as she fell into the grate and the murderer then grabbed the mackintosh from wherever it was and used it to extinguish what was burning before leaving it under what had been alight? If her clothes were on fire at all, her attacker would want to extinguish it and minimise the chances of himself being burnt.

Best regards,
One Round

Hi One Round,

I see no reason why not. Especially if Julia had the mackintosh in her hands about to pass it to William. He then picks it up from where she dropped it to try and put out her burning dress.

[OneRound]

Hi One Round,

I see no reason why not. Especially if Julia had the mackintosh in her hands about to pass it to William. He then picks it up from where she dropped it to try and put out her burning dress.

Thanks, Herlock.

Although being of the ''Wallace did it'' camp, you come across as fairly acknowledging that there wasn't sufficient clear evidence for a conviction and, unlike some or one anyway, always seem open to debate different opinions.

With that in mind, can I ask your views on the very limited time period that Wallace had to kill Julia if he was the person who attacked her and do such other things as get rid of any blood stains and then dispose of the murder weapon. Apologies that is probably old ground for you.

With thanks again and best regards,
One Round

[etenguy]

Hi One Round,

I see no reason why not. Especially if Julia had the mackintosh in her hands about to pass it to William. He then picks it up from where she dropped it to try and put out her burning dress.

I think there is a problem with this scenario. My understanding is that the mackintosh was more extensively burned, such that there was mackintosh ash in the parlour but the dress was singed rather than caught fire.

[RodCrosby]

unlike some or one anyway, always seem open to debate different opinions.

Directed at me, I presume.

I'm always open to debate. Problem is, I've heard it all before over the course of 30 years, and it doesn't sound any better when delivered by newbs to the case, who've scarcely read a book on the subject. And who then obsessively distort and misrepresent the evidence, and offer their prejudice and fancy as fact...

Let me remind you, at the Court of Appeal

Hewart LCJ: "Are you not really saying that if it be assumed that this man committed the murder, other circumstances fit in with that?"

Hemmerde KC: "...the jury were brought irresistibly to the conclusion that it all fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle."

And with that, the Court of Appeal gave a collective snort, and tossed Wallace's conviction in the bin...

Trying to repeat the mistakes of 1931, and pin it on Wallace, is an utterly sterile pursuit.

He didn't do it.

[etenguy]

Directed at me, I presume.

I'm always open to debate. Problem is, I've heard it all before over the course of 30 years, and it doesn't sound any better when delivered by newbs to the case, who've scarcely read a book on the subject. And who then obsessively distort and misrepresent the evidence, and offer their prejudice and fancy as fact...

Let me remind you, at the Court of Appeal

Hewart LCJ: "Are you not really saying that if it be assumed that this man committed the murder, other circumstances fit in with that?"

Hemmerde KC: "...the jury were brought irresistibly to the conclusion that it all fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle."

And with that, the Court of Appeal gave a collective snort, and tossed Wallace's conviction in the bin...

Trying to repeat the mistakes of 1931, and pin it on Wallace, is an utterly sterile pursuit.

He didn't do it.

I think this may be overstating the appeal outcome. The Court of Appeal did not make a pronouncement on Wallace's innocence or guilt, rather that the verdict 'cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence.'

[RodCrosby]

And that is how any civilised country convicts someone. [And we start from the Presumption of Innocence]

EVIDENCE [not suspicions or theories. q.v. Lord Hewart]

There was none then. There is none now.

OTOH, there is evidence against others...

[And I have shown in great detail the powers and rationale of the Court of Appeal, and what they could and could not, and would and would not do in 1931...]

Trying to pin it on Wallace is just a [literal] parlour game. Fun, as long as you don't take it remotely seriously...

But weirdly - and obsessively - some do.

[moste]

And that is how any civilised country convicts someone. [And we start from the Presumption of Innocence]

EVIDENCE [not suspicions or theories. q.v. Lord Hewart]

There was none then. There is none now.

OTOH, there is evidence against others...

[And I have shown in great detail the powers and rationale of the Court of Appeal, and what they could and could not, and would and would not do in 1931...]

Trying to pin it on Wallace is just a [literal] parlour game. Fun, as long as you don't take it remotely seriously...

But weirdly - and obsessively - some do.

So I would suspect, that you believe that the police made a complete hash of the investigation, and that Wallace should not have been charged in the first place Then later when Wallace won his reprieve, the police did nothing other than make the statement 'we are not looking for anyone else , the case is closed' ,you believe, do you this was a horrific mistake, and that the actual perpetrator was still out there?

[RodCrosby]

Yes, of course. All the evidence points to it.

Including policemen later dropping hints...

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Trying to pin it on Wallace is just a [literal] parlour game. Fun, as long as you don't take it remotely seriously...

But weirdly - and obsessively - some do.

As opposed to someone just inventing a scenario and claiming that the case has been solved. The only ‘weird’ thing is that you can’t seem to understand that a created scenario is not proof. It’s not even close to proof.

No one approaches your level of obsessive bias on this case. At least Antony will concede that some points favour a guilty Wallace but you are just a complete zealot. Listening to you anyone would think that this was an open and shut case.

You can duck as many inconvenient points as you like, everyone can see what you do, but Wallace is still overwhelmingly the likeliest culprit. All that you have to cling to is Parkes and the most unbelievable piece of testimony in the history of true crime. Parry wasn’t involved in any way and you cannot link him to the crime in any way. The ‘robbery’ was transparently staged. Wallace couldn’t have acted more suspiciously if Hitchcock had scripted it.

Wallace guilty by a mile.