Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

He tried to set it on fire?

If Wallace, why would he do that? And make such a poor job of it, utilising the gas fire in the parlour?

There was a range fire in the kitchen which people in those days incinerated their "rubbish" on. It was a very effective incinerator, and only ash was left, which was put in an ash-bin in the yard, and collected by ash collectors every week. [people were quite eco-friendly back then!]

Why was Julia's skirt burned also? Is not a more reasonable explanation that, when attacked, Julia fell on the gas fire while holding the mac' herself, and both her skirt and the mac' were partially burned together in the same incident?

[Abby Normal]

Hey Abby - new to this case too. If it was Parry, why make the call at all? Why not just rob the house while Wallace is playing chess? The only reason I can think is that Parry thought there would be more money the next night. Is this plausible?



Indeed, I made a similar point. The possible answer was to make the alibi stronger, but doesn't ring true to me.



I put less faith in this. I can see no reason for keeping quiet at the time but then shouting about it later. I don't think I believe the garage story. Why would Parry put himself in that position?



The reason for the mac could have been to protect the murderer's clothes from getting covered in blood - then abandoned in the house when the murder was over - I don't think iy helps us identify the murderer.



Did you listen to the broadcasts? There are three reasons that make Wallace unlikely in my view:
* he would not have had time to kill her and catch the tram (barely
had time if the revised testimony from the milk kid is believed)
* he chose to die rather then extend his life without his wife
* he had no motive

Doesn't prove his innocence, but makes it difficult to understand how it could have been him.

Hi eten
Parry or someome else made the call to get wallace out of the house on that particular night. Why? Dont know maybe they couldnt do it on another night.or thought there would be more money.

Parry would need to clean his car after. He took a calculated risk.

I think the mac points to wallace. He would have put it on before to keep off blood spatter or maybe thought to use it to wrap her up in. And or use it to try and set her on fire. Neither makes sense for an intruder. Including parry.

How we know he didnt kill her when he got home then when outside and made a scene about trying to get in?

Re motive. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men.

[Abby Normal]

If Wallace, why would he do that? And make such a poor job of it, utilising the gas fire in the parlour?

There was a range fire in the kitchen which people in those days incinerated their "rubbish" on. It was a very effective incinerator, and only ash was left, which was put in an ash-bin in the yard, and collected by ash collectors every week. [people were quite eco-friendly back then!]

Why was Julia's skirt burned also? Is not a more reasonable explanation that, when attacked, Julia fell on the gas fire while holding the mac' herself, and both her skirt and the mac' were partially burned together in the same incident?

Why would she be holdimg onto the mac? Fallinto the fire when being attacked? Neither rings true. More likely the killer tried to set her on fire. Points to wallace.

[RodCrosby]

Why would she be holdimg onto the mac? Fallinto the fire when being attacked? Neither rings true. More likely the killer tried to set her on fire. Points to wallace.

Can you think of a reason why she might be holding or carrying the mac'?

Wallace, 'the killer', knowing he has only minutes at best to commit this murder, clean-up, etc. and race to a tram-stop to give the appearance that he could not in fact have committed the murder, decides to try to burn a mackintosh - or even his wife's body - on the gas fire in the parlour?

Every indication shows that the killer, in fact, pulled Julia and the mac' away from the fire, and put out the flames on the burning mac' by stamping on them.

[Abby Normal]

Can you think of a reason why she might be holding or carrying the mac'?

Wallace, 'the killer', knowing he has only minutes at best to commit this murder, clean-up, etc. and race to a tram-stop to give the appearance that he could not in fact have committed the murder, decides to try to burn a mackintosh - or even his wife's body - on the gas fire in the parlour?

Every indication shows that the killer, in fact, pulled Julia and the mac' away from the fire, and put out the flames on the burning mac' by stamping on them.

I can think of no reason why she wouls be holding the mac.
Perhaps he killed her when he got back, tried to start her on fire when he got back ? It wasnt working so he gave up?
Is there anything that precludes him from killing her when he got back? I know this would entail him goign back outside and then acting like he just got back trying to get into the house. But anything else preclude him from killing her after he got back?

The mac was his its involvement points to him.

[RodCrosby]

Well one reason put forward was that Julia might have answered a knock at the door, and suffering from a cold, on a cold January night, she might have thrown a mac' over her shoulders before entering the vestibule to answer the door.
Mrs. Johnston testified that that was in fact her first thought, when she viewed the body in the parlour.
Is there another possibility?

The forensics seem to preclude Wallace having killed his wife on his return. Both Professor MacFall and Dr. Pierce were certain on the witness-stand that death had occurred no later than 8pm. Wallace returned a few minutes before 8.45pm, which could be verified from his carefully-documented movements around Mossley Hill, the tram-times, and the Johnston's testimonies that they had left their house at 8.45pm, when they encountered Wallace in the alley. No suggestion was ever made that Wallace could have murdered Julia on his return.

[Abby Normal]

Well one reason put forward was that Julia might have answered a knock at the door, and suffering from a cold, on a cold January night, she might have thrown a mac' over her shoulders before entering the vestibule to answer the door.
Mrs. Johnston testified that that was in fact her first thought, when she viewed the body in the parlour.
Is there another possibility?

The forensics seem to preclude Wallace having killed his wife on his return. Both Professor MacFall and Dr. Pierce were certain on the witness-stand that death had occurred no later than 8pm. Wallace returned a few minutes before 8.45pm, which could be verified from his carefully-documented movements around Mossley Hill, the tram-times, and the Johnston's testimonies that they had left their house at 8.45pm, when they encountered Wallace in the alley. No suggestion was ever made that Wallace could have murdered Julia on his return.

Yeah i was just thinking about her wearing the mac in the house on a cold day, and started the fire.
Was the fire a gas fireplace?
Was it off or a fire still going when he got home and discovered her body?

Re Tod. What if he got home between 8:15 and 8:30? Timings whether Tod or witness accounts are notoriously hard to pin down.

I just cant see anything that makes sense with the burnt bloody mac being found under her other than pointing to the husband.

Even if she was wearing it in the house, why would it be under her and not on her if its an outside intruder? There not goiing to take it off her?
And just dont see your idea of her falling into the fire while beimg attacked.
It still looks to me someone tried to set her on fire.

[RodCrosby]

Yeah i was just thinking about her wearing the mac in the house on a cold day, and started the fire.
That was a theory, specifically that she had thrown it over her shoulders to answer the door, then shown a visitor into the parlour, and lit the fire.
Was the fire a gas fireplace?
Yes a domestic gas fire
Was it off or a fire still going when he got home and discovered her body?
It was OFF
Re Tod. What if he got home between 8:15 and 8:30? Timings whether Tod or witness accounts are notoriously hard to pin down.
IIt was clear, from witnesses, that Wallace left Allerton at about 8pm, and his tram journey home was about 40 minutes. Mr Johnston was clear in his testimony that, based on their own clock, he and his wife left their house at 8.45pm, and encountered Wallace in the alley. No-one has ever suggested Wallace murdered his wife on his return, and the pathologists don't support the idea either.

I just cant see anything that makes sense with the burnt bloody mac being found under her other than pointing to the husband.
It was stated by the City Analyst, Roberts at the trial that Julia's skirt had clearly been burned on the fire, and that the mackintosh could also have been burned by falling onto the fire.

Even if she was wearing it in the house, why would it be under her and not on her if its an outside intruder? There not goiing to take it off her?
The suggestion is she either had it over her shoulders or was carrying it over her arm. Not wearing it, fully. It could possibly have ended up under her after a ferocious attack, and then a pulling or rolling of the body away from the fire.
And just dont see your idea of her falling into the fire while beimg attacked.
It was accepted at trial as an obvious possibility, a near certainty, in fact. Hence the burnt skirt which, it was stated, even had marks corresponding to the bars on the fire.
It still looks to me someone tried to set her on fire.
No-one has ever suggested that before. She was obviously Julia Wallace, dead in her own parlour. What benefit would accrue to anyone in trying to damage the corpse, using of all things a domestic gas fire, that they then switched off? The burning of the skirt, such as it was, did not penetrate to damage the skin or flesh.

This is a fiendishly complex case and I always try to reach a consensus on what the EVIDENCE actually shows.

[Harry D]

It's such an elaborate plot just to burgle or bump-off Wallace's old lady.

Why not wait until Wallace was at the chess club and do it? Why all this fuss with "Qualtrough" and Menlove Gardens East?

Isn't the counterargument that the perpetrator couldn't rely on Wallace coming home early from chess club?
What if Wallace hadn't bothered with Menlove Gardens East? What if someone had already told him it didn't exist?
Luckily for him, Wallace fell for the wild goose chase.

It seems to me that Qualtrough need not exist at all, if only to serve as an alibi for Wallace.

[RodCrosby]

It's such an elaborate plot just to burgle or bump-off Wallace's old lady.
Criminals can be ingenious. And perhaps murder was not the intended objective. We should keep an open mind.
Why not wait until Wallace was at the chess club and do it?
Mrs Wallace would not let anyone in she did not know, while her husband was out. So it seems unlikely a stranger could have gained admittance on the Monday. And we know that that did not happen, and was not even tried, in fact.
It seems unlikely a friend would try to rob the house, and expect to get away with it, unless they had resolved to murder as well.
But if that was the plan, as you say, that could have been achieved on the Monday night with a fair degree of certainty, The fact that that was not done suggests that that may not have been the plan, therefore.
Why all this fuss with "Qualtrough" and Menlove Gardens East?
There is probably a clue there. Menlove Gardens was a fair distance away, requiring three trams to reach. Having no East, but a North, South and West might lead a meticulous insurance man to waste even more time, before giving up, and returning home. Why was it important that he waste time? A murder-robbery can be achieved quite quickly, once a murderer has gained admittance to a property. "Qualtrough" is a very unusual name. We might even say memorable.
Isn't the counterargument that the perpetrator couldn't rely on Wallace coming home early from chess club?
We might focus on how the perpetrator gained entrance to the house, and what his objective was, in the light of the known facts.
What if Wallace hadn't bothered with Menlove Gardens East? What if someone had already told him it didn't exist?
He may not have gone, I suppose, and no crime would have occurred.
Luckily for him, Wallace fell for the wild goose chase.
I don't think Wallace felt lucky about it, given what ensued.
It seems to me that Qualtrough need not exist at all, if only to serve as an alibi for Wallace.
But we know Wallace's 'alibi' didn't depend on Qualtrough. It depended on Alan Close...There might be a reason someone else 'needed' Qualtrough to 'exist'.

Perhaps we should first attempt to eliminate Wallace as a suspect if that is possible?

[Abby Normal]

This is a fiendishly complex case and I always try to reach a consensus on what the EVIDENCE actually shows.

Ok taking it from your scenario...she lights the fire, mac still arounf her shoulder. The killer comes up, beats her with something(but what? Something he brought? Something from tje house?)which resilts her falling into fire. She gets out, the beating continues until her death.

Makes sense.

Why would intruder turn off the fire?


Was parry suspected at the time and questioned? Other than knowing wallace and the car cleanimg witness, what other evidence links him to crime?

Alibi is a wash for me. His girlfreimd only came forward to say it was a false alibi after they broke up so no go for me there either way.

[RodCrosby]

Ok taking it from your scenario...she lights the fire, mac still arounf her shoulder. The killer comes up, beats her with something(but what? Something he brought? Something from tje house?)which resilts her falling into fire. She gets out, the beating continues until her death.
The charlady, Mrs Draper, testified that after examining the house with the Police the day after the murder, she noticed two items were missing. A small poker from the kitchen, and a larger iron bar from the parlour, which usually stood next to the gas fire.
In my view, the evidence does not support the theory that Julia was attacked while in the process of lighting the fire. The gas tap was to the right of the fire, but no bloodstains were found in that corner of the room. All the bloodspatter was to the left of the fire, on the violin case, and up the walls there. Professor MacFall thought she had been sitting on the chair to the left of the fire when attacked. It is generally agreed the investigators could have done a better job, although I'm not sure how advanced spatter analysis was in 1931.

Makes sense.
Somewhat, given the limitations of the investigation.

Why would intruder turn off the fire?
We don't know, or why he turned off the lights. We can only speculate. To consign the awful scene to darkness, for some psychological reason? To darken the house, prior to his escape? In 1941 a [quite elderly] criminal battered and strangled a woman to death in her own apartment in London. He then daintily laid a handkerchief over her face. So he didn't have to view his own handiwork? We don't know. He never said. Although a career criminal, he had always been a perfect 'gentleman', and never previously prone to violence, always specialising in confidence scams.

Was Parry suspected at the time and questioned? Other than knowing Wallace and the car cleaning witness, what other evidence links him to crime?
Yes, Parry was seriously suspected. His clothes and car were examined carefully by the Police, and he made a statement. We will look into all this in detail shortly.

Alibi is a wash for me. His girlfriend only came forward to say it was a false alibi after they broke up so no go for me there either way.
It seems the 1981 investigation was confused on this point, not having access to the original statements. As we shall see, the girlfriend did not give Parry an alibi for the time of the murder. Someone else did...

A complex case indeed.

[Abby Normal]

A complex case indeed.

OK thanks Rod-yes very complex.

need to do some more studying up!

[RodCrosby]

The [edited] text of the Trial, with comments by Wyndham-Brown (1933) is here

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

or if you prefer, here

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.220695/page/n7

[RodCrosby]

Or if that's a bit daunting, try

Sayers (1936)

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.220696/2015.220696.The-Anatomy#page/n165/mode/2up

or

Lustgarten (1950)

https://archive.org/stream/verdictindispute00lustuoft#page/162/mode/2up