Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[MoriartyGardensEast]

Hs,

Where is woman murdered? Name please the first two rooms in a house?

I would suggest: 1. The kitchen 2. The bedroom.

That is the first place any man would look. The parlour? Maybe for Agathe Christie.

I any case, what advantage did Wallace gain by delaying the discovery of his wife?

Wallace didn't know she was murdered he didn't know what happened and was worried/perplexed (in the event he was innocent). The parlor would be a natural place to check.

I don't think it is a MAJOR point, but it is a small point.

Add in the fact this sneak thief turned off lights/gas jets, yet no blood tracked anywhere out of room and a victim facing fireplace with no defensive wounds, in a totally different from the cashbox makes quick work of the "sneak thief" theory in my personal opinion. This was a planned assassination.

How about binning the snark, bro?

[moste]

In order to be able to think, one must risk being offensive.

Completely agree ,My point exactly on the A6 thread. Believing from the 'evidence of Wallaces lifestyle , and very likely total lack of passion where Julia was concerned 'I don't think we need to restrict ourselves the Probability of that person being homosexual, if it's another avenue to investigate. I can't agree with Cobalt in this regard,but then that's healthy debate.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi Herlock, Do you (or anyone else) have a diagram of the house's interior, or is there one in any of the standard books on the case? I am not readily seeing one on-line. Thanks.

That Julia didn't scream out seems like a rather insubstantial argument. I can see why someone would be puzzled by it, but couldn't one theorize that a burglar entered thru the back door when she was in the lavatory and he simply ducked around the corner when he heard her coming, and then stunned her with a blow?

No I'd say it isn't possible:

1) The cash box would have been already stolen from and replaced (unless he replaced it for a different reason). From the scene we can see the intruder didn't steal anything else, so at that point he could've just dashed out the back door - he'd obviously got what he came for. So why sneak up on and kill the wife unless that was the entire point of going?

2) If he was able to get in the back door (apparently bolted) without being admitted, he would more likely have made some story that would get both Julia AND Wallace out of the home... Or like most burglars just broken in late at night... The story appears to have been such that it ensured Wallace would be out while Julia would likely still be in.

3) No sign of forced entry, which I assume means no sign of picked locks etc.

---

The fact she didn't scream out just means she almost certainly didn't expect the attack, or trusted her attacker. It suggests she hadn't just caught a burglar.

I think only two men in the home is plausible given where she was attacked, where the killer was stood in relation to her, and where the box was.

If there were two men and she heard a noise in the kitchen, she likely wouldn't have been alarmed (I'm sure it's happened in your homes often where something innocuous falls over in another room) so no shouting. But the other guy beside her in the parlor struck her down before she could investigate.

[moste]

He wouldn't have ignored the parlour.

[WallaceWackedHer]

To be honest Herlock, look at how close the stairs are. Someone coming out of the kitchen is almost on the bottom stair. Surely, it's just as easy to go up the stairs especially if you are not expecting anyone to be in the parlour? In other words, Wallace is not "walking straight past it" as he would be if he were going to the front door. What does everyone else think?

I initially agreed, but now I slightly disagree having seen the blueprints.

He didn't have to clear out the room SWAT style, just peek in. I think there was some contention about whether the body could be seen in the dark. I believe Wallace said he saw her body before he put the light on.

And it wasn't just Julia he had to be concerned about, at the time he thought there might be someone in the house, so I'd definitely peer into every room.

Why didn't he call her name as soon as he entered the back door if he was so convinced someone unpleasant might have been in the home?

I'd have to check the trial again but I think there was some contention about whether he should have discovered her before going upstairs.

[MoriartyGardensEast]

Completely agree ,My point exactly on the A6 thread. Believing from the 'evidence of Wallaces lifestyle , and very likely total lack of passion where Julia was concerned 'I don't think we need to restrict ourselves the Probability of that person being homosexual, if it's another avenue to investigate. I can't agree with Cobalt in this regard,but then that's healthy debate.

Thanks moste, I believe it's important to consider every possibility and angle. And I mentioned before there was a long post on a now defunct blog by a poster about John Gannon's book, saying his father knew Wallace was gay and some other interesting tidbits. The poster seemed to be saying that Gannon was somewhat on the money but had gotten the Julia younger guys angle backwards. It was Wallace who had affairs with younger men and that had something to do with Julia's death. Gannon himself ironically came across as very dismissive here when it was brought up.

It could be total hogwash (as Cobalt so friendly puts it), but why not fully examine each permutation. Parry describing Wallace as sexually odd raises an eyebrow. There are other aspects too as you note.

Is a gay Wallace enlisting others to help him kill his wife to preserve the sordid affair my favorite solution? No. But we can't spare the possibility from some moral standpoint. Or to try to not sound "out there." This is a celebrated case partially because whatever happened was extraordinary and defies simple logic. We shouldn't be bullied into not going down certain trains of thought. If something strikes someone as ridiculous, then it can be kindly pointed out why logically that makes no sense.

If Wallace was truly innocent, then I feel very sorry he had to endure such an awful experience. If he were on trial today, I would not convict. I think he was guilty, but it doesn't quite reach "beyond a reasonable doubt." But that's besides the point, which is we must consider every angle of this case to fully do it justice.

[moste]

He wouldn't have ignored the parlour.

Here's something worth a thought. There was talk of Wallace considering foul play and someone still being in the house. So, even if we forget Wallace not asking Johnstone to go in with him. Would he bypass the parlour thus trapping himself upstairs . An assailant (who would probably not know of Wallace having a neighbour as an ally in the back yard),would ,from Wallaces Perspective now have the upper hand in a confrontation situation. No I'm convinced ,unless it can be said that Wallace had no notion of an intruder being in the house, this constitutes a flaw in the plan. He most definately would have check the parlour ,definately if he suspected an intruder, most probably if he didn't suspect an intruder! IMO.

[rjpalmer]

No I'd say it isn't possible.

No offense, but I think you are seriously overstating your case. Is it likely Julia was killed by an intruder? Perhaps not, but it is hardly impossible. It does happen. I know of three cases in my relatively small home city of people who were killed by intruders. You also assume that 1) the back door was locked. Not necessarily true. My aging parents were fairly paranoid, but they were also fairly absent-minded, and I found their backdoor unlocked more than once. 2) that the intruder knew Julia was home. This isn't necessarily true either. The intruder could have learned about a geezer with a cash box from Parry, wrongly assumed Wallace lived alone, entered the building and was startled to hear someone coming down the hall (from the upstairs bathroom?) and beat her senseless. He then grabbed the cash as described by Parry and fled.

There was a case in London in the 1880s that bears some resemblance to the Wallace affair. A woman in the East End was rumored to have kept a large amount of money in her house, but she seldom left the building. One night she was lured out of the house by an anonymous note, claiming that one of her tenants was making a "runner." When she left to go on this bogus errand, the thieves entered her house. (Sound familiar?) Unfortunately, she returned from the bogus errant too soon and she was murdered just inside her front door. The thieves could simply have made a run for it, as you suggest in your post, but they didn't. For whatever reason, adrenaline or psychosis, they killed her. Scotland Yard never solved the case, but no, it wasn't her husband. He was an invalid with an airtight alibi. It was a robbery gone "haywire," and it had been set-up with a wild goose chase, just as some believe happened in the Wallace affair. Cheers.

[WallaceWackedHer]

No offense, but I think you are seriously overstating your case. Is it likely Julia was killed by an intruder? Perhaps not, but it is hardly impossible. It does happen. I know of three cases in my relatively small home city of people who were killed by intruders. You also assume that 1) the back door was locked. Not necessarily true. My aging parents were fairly paranoid, but they were also fairly absent-minded, and I found their backdoor unlocked more than once. 2) that the intruder knew Julia was home. This isn't necessarily true either. The intruder could have learned about a geezer with a cash box from Parry, wrongly assumed Wallace lived alone, entered the building and was startled to hear someone coming down the hall (from the upstairs bathroom?) and beat her senseless. He then grabbed the cash as described by Parry and fled.

There was a case in London in the 1880s that bears some resemblance to the Wallace affair. A woman in the East End was rumored to have kept a large amount of money in her house, but she seldom left the building. One night she was lured out of the house by an anonymous note, claiming that one of her tenants was making a "runner." When she left to go on this bogus errand, the thieves entered her house. (Sound familiar?) Unfortunately, she returned from the bogus errant too soon and she was murdered just inside her front door. The thieves could simply have made a run for it, as you suggest in your post, but they didn't. For whatever reason, adrenaline or psychosis, they killed her. Scotland Yard never solved the case, but no, it wasn't her husband. He was an invalid with an airtight alibi. It was a robbery gone "haywire," and it had been set-up with a wild goose chase, just as some believe happened in the Wallace affair. Cheers.

Thanks a lot for posting this!!!

Is that the only case you know of or was it a well known tactic at the time? Was this crime well known at the time Julia was killed? Both her and Wallace were quite old, could be an attempt at a copycat.

But you see the case you described removes the issues that make it unlikely the same thing happened here:

1) A note was given in your case.

Here, either the killer LEGITIMATELY didn't know Wallace's address (pointing to it being a completely random person - and Parry etc knew Julia lived there so woulda lured both) or he did but went for a much less reliable option for no reason.

2) In your case the woman was murdered near the door.

This is what I propose would've happened IF Julia had caught a burglar - that she'd have been caught where she found him, or near the door.

The kitchen had easy access to the exit. Julia was killed in the parlor. Silently. It's VERY unlikely she caught them - so why kill her?

3) This woman returned early.

Unless Beattie gave a false address by accident and it WAS "west", it's very likely Wallace would have returned early as well. I think a real burglar would give a real address.

4) The killer did not know she'd be out on a given night.

The caller suspected Wallace would be at chess club, an ample opportunity to commit the crime if he thought Wallace lived alone especially.

5) You also have the issue of Wallace's odd behavior and changing stories. It's possible an innocent Wallace knew how heavily he was implicated by the evidence and tried to lie to make himself seem more innocent.

6) Wallace claimed the back and yard door were bolted IIRC, but retracted that.

---

Can you please link more information about the case you're thinking of?

[moste]

You might want to watch your tone

Your "niceguy" act is slipping.

Let's see more charts and diagrams

It may be induced by something out of his/her control. I've noticed the arrogance/aggression level increase spasmodically, seemingly on a whim, whether it's substance intake or simple the time of month , who knows! It's a shame because it should be unnecessary to have to caution someone due to an unacceptable level of debate, some have tried to give back as good as they get, but it's pretty much fruitless .Passive resistance I found the best medicine in the past on other forums, but it's not easy to concentrate on making a valid point about a crime case when your being verbally bullid.

[ColdCaseJury]

I initially agreed, but now I slightly disagree having seen the blueprints.

He didn't have to clear out the room SWAT style, just peek in. I think there was some contention about whether the body could be seen in the dark. I believe Wallace said he saw her body before he put the light on.

And it wasn't just Julia he had to be concerned about, at the time he thought there might be someone in the house, so I'd definitely peer into every room.

Why didn't he call her name as soon as he entered the back door if he was so convinced someone unpleasant might have been in the home?

I'd have to check the trial again but I think there was some contention about whether he should have discovered her before going upstairs.

I believe he called out as he reached the stairs/started climbing the stairs. Yes, a check of TS would be useful.

[moste]

I believe he called out as he reached the stairs/started climbing the stairs. Yes, a check of TS would be useful.

I read 'Johnstone thought Wallace called something out, possibly Julias name,while searching through the house.'I've made the point before ,you would really expect given surely the major concern in Wallace's mind ,that he would be shouting her name with some level of audible urgency particularly after coming across the ripped off cupboard door.

[MoriartyGardensEast]

It may be induced by something out of his/her control. I've noticed the arrogance/aggression level increase spasmodically, seemingly on a whim, whether it's substance intake or simple the time of month , who knows! It's a shame because it should be unnecessary to have to caution someone due to an unacceptable level of debate, some have tried to give back as good as they get, but it's pretty much fruitless .Passive resistance I found the best medicine in the past on other forums, but it's not easy to concentrate on making a valid point about a crime case when your being verbally bullid.

Very well said Moste, it is quite a bit of a conundrum to put up with certain poster (s) repeated hissy fits.

I believe people with personality disorders should be pitied and understood rather than vilified, but when their behavior infringes on others, they must be put in their place for the greater good.

CCJ, what do you think? What are your thoughts on this as someone with a philosophy degree from a fine British univeristy?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I believe he called out as he reached the stairs/started climbing the stairs. Yes, a check of TS would be useful.

Yes I think it was Mrs. Johnston who said he called out twice. They said they couldn't hear what he was saying, but what else could he be saying apart from her name? Lol.

I still find it unusual he didn't call for her as soon as he got in the back door. That would surely be a natural reaction. Or at least once seeing the broken cupboard door unless it had already been that way.

As for the ripped off cupboard door, if the burglar knew where the cash box was, which it seems he evidently did, why would he pull it off in the first place? If he had time to yank off the door, why not snatch up Julia's purse, or some other valuables which were within easier reach?

Why does a cupboard door even NEED to be yanked off to begin with? Lmfaooo. They don't have locks you know... It just screamsssss "staged robbery". The more and more you look into it the more it seems that way. Still I think the police made a mistake in assuming only Wallace would want to kill her, just like I think they made a big mistake in ASSUMING the caller must definitely be the killer himself as well.

The funny thing about this case in some ways though... Is that it's Wallace's own actions that make him seem guilty to begin with. If he'd received a note for Menlove Gardens West, not pestered all the tram conductors but gone to a directory, turned up at MGW, seen it's a BS address, realized MGN and MGS are all even numbers, tried Menlove Avenue, then gone home, come in the house without difficulty, found her dead, then yelled and went to get the neighbors, and there wasn't a pretty likely staged robbery (as opposed to a real one), and he didn't change his story etc in trial... Well then I'd have more reason to believe he was innocent. Even if she was killed as a primary objective.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Here's something I don't understand. Not sure if we're allowed to post crime scene photos, if not sorry, someone can delete it, but have you all seen where her body is and where the fireplace is:

https://i.imgur.com/n59LheQ.png

I don't understand why the report says she was bending down for the fireplace? We do find matches under her body, but I assumed they thought she was bending down front-on to the fire.

Based on where her body has fallen, unless it was moved a bit, I struggle to see where she could have been apart from on that sofa looking towards where the door for the room would be. And I struggle to find where the killer would be to deliver the fatal blow that was to the back of the skull and made her fall forward into that position.

I can legitimately only place the blow as having come from behind the curtain. Can anyone else suggest where she may have been hit from for her to fall into that position from a strike to the back of the head?

That assumes she WAS bending. If she was stood up and going out of the room, someone who was sitting on the sofa with her could've also stood up and hit her. The iron bar and poker would be within easy reach of the fireplace right?