Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No the "3-4 blows from a large headed instrument" is in the written post-mortem report (p. 188). The 8pm time is in a second written report. In the witness box, he said he was definite there were 12 blows, then corrected himself to say 11; and he infamously asserted that time of death was 6pm or before.

Thanks Antony, I’ll have to check your book when I get home. It’s certainly strange but I’m inclined (rightly or wrongly) to seek a reasonable explaination. Why would MacFall have lied? 3 or 4 blows or 11 or 12? None of them point any more or less toward or away from William unless it’s being suggested that the greater the frenzy the greater the chance of the murder being personal?

[ColdCaseJury]

Thanks Antony, I’ll have to check your book when I get home. It’s certainly strange but I’m inclined (rightly or wrongly) to seek a reasonable explaination. Why would MacFall have lied? 3 or 4 blows or 11 or 12? None of them point any more or less toward or away from William unless it’s being suggested that the greater the frenzy the greater the chance of the murder being personal?

The latter. One of the grounds for the appeal (#6) was exactly your last point. In effect, MacFall's evidence clearly implied that only a husband could be moved to murder in such a way. It was overkill.

I agree that 3-4 blows does not rule out Wallace, of course, but it is conceivable that someone else used 3 blows: One to stun, one to kill, one to make sure. That's the point, I suggest: 11 rules out anyone else.

[Admin]

To The Single Individual to Whom this Post Pertains (all else, feel free to ignore):

When you decided to show your ass and declare you didn't care if you were banned, you were going to HAVE YOUR SAY, apparently, you did care because you keep trying to re-register. This is the ... what, third/fourth account? That I know about? Now, we've been distracted with the redesign, so two have gotten through, congrats.

The first time, we sent you a very nice Private Message that told you what would be required of you, if you wished to join our board. You ignored it, and created another account.

So let me be explicit and public: you are too obvious in your posting strategy to come in and slide under the radar. You will be reported and banned, EVERY SINGLE TIME. Actually, we've probably fixed the problem of you sliding in but who knows. But you will be reported and banned every single time.

Unless, you meet the conditions that we sent to you, for your return, in the PM that we sent to your last sock account. Now, we can on occasion be reasonable people. What you did was not so egregious that we consider you in the category of permanent/never to be allowed back. But, the conditions, which we sent to you in PM and your then registered email account, will be met, or you will not post.

Have a wonderful day.

All please ignore this and don't comment on the particulars. Thanks.

[ColdCaseJury]

HS, to continue from our last point. Even if MacFall did fit the facts to the police case, it does not weaken the other evidence against Wallace. What it does undermine, I suggest, would be this argument: 11 blows were used therefore it was a highly personal, frenzied attack. Obviously, a time of death of 8 PM would rule out Wallace, but we all know these are estimates at best, and in this case relied exclusively on a highly inaccurate methodology.

[WallaceWackedHer]

It was really kind of the burglar to leave some money in the cash box for Wallace to keep as a token of apology for having murdered his wife.

[etenguy]

HS, to continue from our last point. Even if MacFall did fit the facts to the police case, it does not weaken the other evidence against Wallace. What it does undermine, I suggest, would be this argument: 11 blows were used therefore it was a highly personal, frenzied attack. Obviously, a time of death of 8 PM would rule out Wallace, but we all know these are estimates at best, and in this case relied exclusively on a highly inaccurate methodology.

I am inclined to believe on the balance of probabilities (but not beyond reasonable doubt) that Wallace was the murderer. MacFall's evidence contained a number of elements which pointed to Wallace - the number of blows administered, the idea of Wallace being temporarily insane and his insistence that this crime was like so many other husband killing wife murders. The first is in contrast with his written report and the other two issues are mere speculation/opinion but provided as a matter of fact by an authority. I think you were quite right to caution care about considering MacFall's testimony.

I think the suggestion was the time of death could be no later than 8.00pm - in which case Wallace, a collaborator, an accomplice or A N Other could all still be considered as Julia's murderer - none would be ruled out in this scenario.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS, to continue from our last point. Even if MacFall did fit the facts to the police case, it does not weaken the other evidence against Wallace. What it does undermine, I suggest, would be this argument: 11 blows were used therefore it was a highly personal, frenzied attack. Obviously, a time of death of 8 PM would rule out Wallace, but we all know these are estimates at best, and in this case relied exclusively on a highly inaccurate methodology.

This is definitely a point that can’t be ignored or brushed under the carpet. I still struggle with the idea that MacFall would lie in court when the defence might have brought up his original 3 or 4 blows? How would he have responded to that line of questioning without looking incompetent at best or at worst dishonest? What if the defence had brought in their own expert?

Could it be possible that his original count was an error that he corrected on closer examination?

I know, you’ll think I’m trying to square the circle, but I do find it strange. MacFall wasn’t a shrinking violet from all accounts; he was ambitious. Why would he have risked his reputation to gain the prosecution quite a minor advantage?

[cobalt]

MacFall's evidence contained a number of elements which pointed to Wallace - the number of blows administered, the idea of Wallace being temporarily insane and his insistence that this crime was like so many other husband killing wife murders.

If Wallace was temporarily insane when he launched a savage attack on his wife, was he also temporarily insane when he phoned his chess club purporting to be RM Qualtrough? How long does temporary insanity last?

This crime may be actually very similar to most husband/wife murders in its execution, but it is very different to almost all others in its context.

[etenguy]

If Wallace was temporarily insane when he launched a savage attack on his wife, was he also temporarily insane when he phoned his chess club purporting to be RM Qualtrough? How long does temporary insanity last?

This crime may be actually very similar to most husband/wife murders in its execution, but it is very different to almost all others in its context.

I think you miss the point of the complete post, which was to caution care when considering MacFall's testimony and to consider that which he states as fact and that which he states is his opinion (which juror's may have interpreted as fact given his authoritative manner).

[ColdCaseJury]

If Wallace was temporarily insane when he launched a savage attack on his wife, was he also temporarily insane when he phoned his chess club purporting to be RM Qualtrough? How long does temporary insanity last?

This crime may be actually very similar to most husband/wife murders in its execution, but it is very different to almost all others in its context.

As you imply, Wallace was not insane, temporary or otherwise, although his kidney condition could affect his mental well-being, especially over the longer term. MacFall was not an expert in psychology and should not have been allowed to offer opinions in this domain (the judge was at fault). Even in forensic pathology, his opinion has to be questioned in this case. I suggest a cautious person would maintain that Wallace was killed with at least 3-4 blows and the time of death was between 6:40 and 8:40 pm; MacFall, more or less, drops out as irrelevant.

[moste]

I found this extract from the trial:



Did everyone know this already?

I think it would be better to narrow down the motive to murder or intentional framing of Wallace (likely as some kind of revenge tactic? He was an insurance agent after all). It's not just because of the above.

If it was a framing, it may be someone familiar with switchboards (or who worked as a switchboard operator) and purposefully had the call logged at the booth near Wallace's home, and purposefully made the "robbery" look as staged as possible.

If someone tried to frame him, it may not necessarily have been to seek revenge on Wallace, perhaps the person hated Julia and wanted police to direct their attention to the husband to avoid them looking at other potential suspects who may have reason to kill her.

---

I'll also add. The lack of blood on Lizzie Borden was used as defence in her trial. Now it is said she probably wore something like an apron to protect her undergarments, and washed off her hands. She would have had to have done this VERY quickly after murdering her stepmother, as she then came to see her father very shortly after, free of blood.

The stepmom was hit with a HATCHET 18 times (!). The father Andrew was hit 11 times, to the point where you literally cannot even discern where any features of his face are.

---

By the way, I propose an attempt was made to burn the mackintosh, and it was actually the mackintosh which partially burned Julia's skirt (the mack was much more severely burned).

For what purpose do you think the attempt to burn the mackintosh was made?

Not to destroy it completely, surely, that would be performed in the kitchen, where the open coal

Fire was.

[WallaceWackedHer]

For what purpose do you think the attempt to burn the mackintosh was made?

Not to destroy it completely, surely, that would be performed in the kitchen, where the open coal

Fire was.

Probably to destroy. Or accidentally slipped into fire and the fire caught the skirt off of the flames on the mack. The mack was burnt way worse btw.

Btw just to reiterate, the cash box which had been stolen from still had cash in, and the exact amount missing was found covered in blood in a vase upstairs lmao.

The staging is so bad it seems he was framed. Or really dumb.

I posted crime scene on forensics forums.

[moste]

I think some variation of that suggestion is correct Abby. An initial blow. Julia falls against the fire. The killer pulls her away from the fire.

That's my take on the burning too. Though red herrings in this case abound, I think this accidental

[Herlock Sholmes]

Where’s Rod

[moste]

If Wallace was temporarily insane when he launched a savage attack on his wife, was he also temporarily insane when he phoned his chess club purporting to be RM Qualtrough? How long does temporary insanity last?

This crime may be actually very similar to most husband/wife murders in its execution, but it is very different to almost all others in its context.

I figure Wallace concieved this plot quite a while back , at least weeks before ,maybe longer . For all we know he may have had the wheels in motion to carry out the murder and had to abort the plan for whatever reason . I would say he was very meticulous in his preparations, and anything on the night that might have happened that he wasn't happy with ,the mission would be terminated. Take the Q,call as an example, if someone had approached the phone box or he had been involved unexpectedly with anyone ,'mission terminated' just about all of his movements to my mind were calculated . People say he was lucky the way the Johnstones appeared on their way out, I think he took this as fortunate, as his plan all along was to rouse a neighbour to witness his apparent distress at not being able to access his home ,and then witness the discovery.