Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[moste]

1) Why did Joseph rent out a home for Amy to move into with him when he could have gone to Amy's place?

Well, Joseph I believe was quite a lot better off financially than his brother. Looking at Amy's flat on Google Earth, which appears to be on the second floor of a large semi- detached Victorian house ,she may only have been renting a room with access to a bathroom. So it would make sense Joseph wanting his wife to join him in their own place.

[moste]

5 / An image of W H Wallace with his brother Joseph:

It was this photo that made me think ' hello, those brothers could pass for each other, ....I wonder!

[WallaceWackedHer]

By the way, I forgot to mention, the first entry to the park is right on that roundabout, it is 9 minutes to this entrance. 11 minutes is from the drop off point to 31 Bentley Road.

Although the Holmes's (#27) home has side by side front doors with Wallaces,the Johnstons parlours at #31 are divided only by a double brick wall. On the other hand 27 and 29 have 2 sets of staircases between the two parlours including the double brick wall of course. So the Johnstons would be better positioned to hear stuff in the Wallaces parlour than the Holmes's
Interestingly, 'Wilkes' has the Holmes's sitting down having tea in the middle kitchen when the sound was heard . I would challenge that they heard a falling Julia onto a carpeted , rugged , floor if this was the situation.

The Johnstons did not live in the parlor, but sitll, I see the point.

[WallaceWackedHer]

1) Why did Joseph rent out a home for Amy to move into with him when he could have gone to Amy's place?

Well, Joseph I believe was quite a lot better off financially than his brother. Looking at Amy's flat on Google Earth, which appears to be on the second floor of a large semi- detached Victorian house ,she may only have been renting a room with access to a bathroom. So it would make sense Joseph wanting his wife to join him in their own place.

This is the description of Amy:

"Amy, of course—domineering, definite, up to the minute in the clothes she wore and the hair styles she assumed, worldly-wise, and not caring a damn for anyone or anything."

Did she even have a job? Didn't her husband send her money? Lol.

[WallaceWackedHer]

More newspaper findings. I believe this may contain a testimony from #27 Wolverton Street:

The street is in a quiet neighbourhood and any unusual sounds or occurrences must have been noticed by neighbours.

The "Post" learned that Mr. and Mrs. Wallace lived a quiet happy life together, and there were few visitors to their house. The street is occupied by typical middle-class suburban people, and a more unlikely scene for a murder could hardly be imagined.

A lady who lives next door to the Wallaces [I believe this may be #27, as Mrs. Johnston is referred to as a different neighbor.] told the "Post" that during the day the window cleaners had been working at the Wallaces house and later, about 5 p.m., the baker's boy called.

He evidently delivered the bread otherwise he would have left it with her [the neighbor, I assume] as he had done on previous occassions when Mrs. Wallace was out.

"Had there been any disturbance of an unusual nature next door," she said, "my dog - a pom who is quick to resent any strange noise - would have given the alarm by its furious barking. Everything was quiet however, and the discovery came as a shock to me."

In the same article, the newspaper statement from Amy Wallace, the one I think she was angry about being published in the papers:

"Mrs. Wallace was one of the most peaceful and loveable of women. In fact her kindness was perhaps her only fault. Her husband, my brother-in-law, was perhaps nervous of her being all alone at home at night, as they had no family, and had told her more than once not to open the door to strangers.

I expect she did not like to keep them out in the cold, and this terrible business may have been the result of her kindness. I am sure she had no personal enemies. The motive must have been robbery."

An important differing statement from Mrs. Johnston, which I've never seen mentioned elsewhere:

"There have been burglaries in the street, and about a month ago a house was broken into at the other end of the street and some of us have been nervous."

I believe Wallace had also said a home had been broken into some 12 or 18 months earlier but I'm not sure? But I know he had mentioned the very recent one, which had occurred just before Christmas. If my reading on other source materials is to be believed. The scene of that crime was at #19 Wolverton Street where the Shotton's lived, and was VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL. The bedroom rifled (pillows and blankets thrown around), the savings stolen but nothing else (and the container replaced), and importantly. NO FORCED ENTRY. Implying someone on the street had commited the crimes. But I cannot find any information on this to confirm or deny. Just information that semi-confirms it.

Apparently on the same night as the murder, a little after 10 o'clock at night, near a cinema, a man named Daniel O'Mara in a nearby area had threatened crowds with an iron bar, set his baby ablaze (wtf) with paraffin, thrown it out the window, then jumped himself headfirst onto the pavement. Both died, leaving behind his widow and 5 year old daughter. He had been out of work for 5 years and was short of cash and seriously depressed.

Address: No. 48 Scotland Road (near the Vauxhall area). By Google maps, this is a 28 minute journey from 29 Wolverton Street, by bus, including walking time... But of course these are modernized bus routes, not the trams etc.

There are more details if you wish.

[This is all from the Nottingham Evening Post, January 21st, 1931]

Mr. Johnston in a different paper on the same day states:

"I followed him into the dining room, which is between the front room and the kitchen, and saw Mrs. Wallace lying on the floor in a pool of blood."

[WallaceWackedHer]

BREAKING NEW EVIDENCE:

Startling information on the Anfield burgling spree and Wolverton Street provides new key evidence...

Suspicion is being directed (writes our Liverpool correspondent) towards a man who has been housebreaking in the Anfield district with the aid of duplicate keys. Between 20 and 30 cases have been reported in the police division of houses being entered during the temporary absence of the occupants, and in every case a duplicate or skeleton key was the means by which entry was obtained.

Yorkshire Evening Post, January 21st, 1931.

More insane information about Wolverton Street following very shortly as I type it...

This man has cleverly evaded capture, although a deliberate watch has been kept for him. The fact that a duplicate key appears to have been used to gain admission into Mrs. Wallace's house is regarded as more than a coincidence.

Mr. Wallace has been very ill for some time. He recently came out of the Southern Hospital at Liverpool where he had been treated for an internal growth. He was very weak and neighbors say that his wife not only nursed him back to health, but kept his insurance agency going.

Wolverton Street is a street of strange fatalities. Within a short period there have been three suicides in the street, and there are five widows living there whose husbands have died in tragic circumstances. One man dropped dead at a football match, and another died while on holiday.

Why have authors writing about this case SUPPRESSED this information? The use of a duplicate key is confirmed in the Derby Daily Telegraph of the same day as the initial theory of detectives (this same paper also has the story of the O'Mara madman brandishing an iron bar before setting his baby on fire wrapped in brown paper and parrafin and leaping to his death).

Also, were those suicides confirmed as genuine, or "staged" I wonder? It does appear to be a street filled with bad luck, despite its apparent middle-class residents.

[WallaceWackedHer]

From the Londonderry Sentinel:

Mr J. Johnston, an engineer who lives next door to the house where the murder was committed said:-"Mr Wallace came to me at about a-quarter to nine last night and said 'I cannot get in. Have you heard anything!' He then pushed the back door very hard and it opened...

Will continue after pointing out this Johnston statement in court:

Were you able to hear, from where you were, whether
he tried with his key or anything ? — No, he did not seem
to try the key ; he seemed to turn the knob in the usual
way.

And said, “ It opens now ” ? — Yes.

Mr. Justice Wright — Could you see ? — Yes ; I could
see him at the door, my Lord.

And it seemed to open quite easily ? — Yes. There was no
violence in the action of opening the door.

And now back to the newspaper article:

... He went in and a few minutes later came out terribly upset and said 'My wife is dead.'"

...

"The man who did those injuries," Mr. Johnston said, "must have been a giant with terrific strength."

...

Twenty four hours before the murder Mrs. Wallace's black cat had disappeared, and has not been seen since. [This error about the cat still not being found was in numerous papers, it was reported on the 23rd that the cat had turned up "the previous day" (the 22nd).]

[WallaceWackedHer]

Man I have scoured so many newspaper articles I have a serious migraine. Anyway... The crime at 29 Wolverton Street is practically identical to the housbreaking at 19 Wolverton Street (with the exception of murder), which happened the month before (December 1930). The savings were taken, sheets and pillows chucked around, and the container of the savings placed back, before the burglar left. The residents had been away at the time.

On the 20th, you see an almost identical scene. Why have NO authors reported anything about the Anfield housebreakings beyond saying "a burglar had been terrorizing the Anfield district at the time"? It must be in the police case files as it was their immediate theory. But nobody mentions it? So what is going on with that... It seems like purposeful suppression of information... Perhaps fear of living relatives attempting lawsuits?... It is blatantly important information to know that a total of 20 to 30 break ins had been committed in the district (one as recent as a month ago) ALL using a "duplicate" or "skeleton" key. Which would obviously make someone think twice about whether no forced entry definitely = willful admittance. And especially the similarity in the scene of the crime.

So anyway... I do think the taxi driver's journey is an interesting one. They were in fact headed directly for Sefton Park but the passenger demanded he turn off on Beaumont Road, and then Kingsley Road (sp?), and that the description curiously matches Joseph Wallace, and a plausible route can be traced from disposal of the weaponry to an arrival at the rented home or Amy's apartment. Antony checked for the time Joseph arrived in Liverpool, but there is no record of him arriving at the time he should have. So it is quite curious... And coupled with the weird item Wallace claimed missing, and rumors of Amy's weird sexual behaviors in Malaya, and of course the "sexually odd" comment, you may want to explore that further...
---

BUT, moving on, considering 19 was also hit and the scene so similar, and up to THIRTY other burglaries with NO FORCED ENTRY in the area, there are two strong solutions that come to my mind:

1) The same intruder attempted to burgle 29 Wolverton Street. It's possible but at the same time difficult to believe... I know Julia was reclusive, but surely anyone familiar enough with Wallace would know he had a wife right? So I don't know why they tried to sneak in with her in there... Maybe they mistakenly thought she had gone out? Or someone at the City Café either didn't know Wallace had a wife (but knew he attended chess club) OR neglected to tell the burglar.

I also do NOT know why Julia did not scream had it been a true invasion. There are possible ways, like if she was sleeping due to her illness and then stirred to a sound, sat up, was surprised to see someone familiar in the home, was quizzically like "what are you doing here?" and then hit before she could realize the danger... Pure speculation on my part...

2) Someone knew who was involved in these crimes, then blackmailed them into committing murder and staging it to look like the scene at #19.

Unfortunately, as per Antony's book, the benzidine test was NOT carried out on any of the drains or basins etc. (?!) so we do NOT know whether or not they were used... However, assuming they really weren't, then yes I think the killer would be noticeably covered in blood... It seems obvious... And then somehow they manage to basically "vanish" into thin air? Nobody sees any blood-soaked man around the scene, nor hears any suspicious noise... The most likely way the person could "vanish" without a trace, is if they were living on the odd side of Wolverton Street, or the opposite side of the entryways on Richmond Park, encapsulated in the red box below, the blue box being #19 that was burgled in December:

https://i.imgur.com/I58Kmhh.png

Not sure why Imgur pictures upload so tiny, it's very frustrating... But anyway, that red box encapsulates the home address of what I feel would give the killer the easiest chance to get away without being spotted, given they were soaked in blood. Obviously the closer to 29 Wolverton Street they are, the better the odds, but I shouldn't think it'd be too difficult to make it up to the other end without being seen... I don't believe sounds of cars were heard, and as you have learned, it was a particularly quiet neighborhood, despite the messed up suicides and burglaries lol.

Then later on you see that the cat re-appears. On such a cold rainy night a cat would certainly have returned home, unless, as was posited, it was kept at a neighbor's house (Antony suggested perhaps it had visited the previous owner). You would think a neighbor with good intentions would have returned the cat the next day so Julia - so attached to that cat - did not worry as much as she did, but instead it does not show up until late at night, seemingly anxious to get inside and relieved by the officers opening the door.

On the other hand the cat may have been used to gain entry into the home, and subsequently Julia was killed, before the murderer exited out the back and swiftly back into their own home to wash themselves off and so on, taking the cat out to cover up the fact that it was used in that manner (there was no other way it could have gotten in) or maybe wash off splatter that had got on the cat lol... It's possible the iron bar and poker were taken as red herrings, or Draper is lying (which poses an interesting idea - as I've not been able to ascertain the coverage area in which the crimes took place, and there is no information on the list of homes at which Draper or potential colleagues worked).

We know that in each case of intrusion a skeleton or duplicate key was used, and the intruder (at least at #19 we can verify) had intricate knowledge of the home and where things were kept. Information which could be provided by any staff that worked there, or any neighbor who had entered the home before - something for your consideration... It also was NOT unknown for housebreakers to form little "syndicates" of sorts, so anybody who entered may have had someone in the "syndicate" within that encapsulated box, and used that home to wash themselves off, etc.

Also consider that 29 was the only possible "Anfield burglary" (or faked Anfield burglary) that resulted in murder, and promptly after this, the crime spree stopped dead in its tracks.

---

This has taken me absolutely AGES but I think you will find there is a lot of new evidence for you to consider. Time to go to bed.

P.S. The fact the Anfield burglaries and duplicate keys were not brought up by the defence is a ******* travesty and a miscarriage of justice IMO.

[Herlock Sholmes]

BREAKING NEW EVIDENCE:

Startling information on the Anfield burgling spree and Wolverton Street provides new key evidence...



Yorkshire Evening Post, January 21st, 1931.

More insane information about Wolverton Street following very shortly as I type it...



Why have authors writing about this case SUPPRESSED this information? The use of a duplicate key is confirmed in the Derby Daily Telegraph of the same day as the initial theory of detectives (this same paper also has the story of the O'Mara madman brandishing an iron bar before setting his baby on fire wrapped in brown paper and parrafin and leaping to his death).

Also, were those suicides confirmed as genuine, or "staged" I wonder? It does appear to be a street filled with bad luck, despite its apparent middle-class residents.

The suggestion of the Anfield Housebreaker using a duplicate key was mentioned by Goodman (page 25)

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Man I have scoured so many newspaper articles I have a serious migraine. Anyway... The crime at 29 Wolverton Street is practically identical to the housbreaking at 19 Wolverton Street (with the exception of murder), which happened the month before (December 1930). The savings were taken, sheets and pillows chucked around, and the container of the savings placed back, before the burglar left. The residents had been away at the time.

Maybe a guilty Wallace was trying to make things resemble the work of the Anfield Housebreaker but this time it went wrong as he didn’t realise that Julia was at home?

On the 20th, you see an almost identical scene. Why have NO authors reported anything about the Anfield housebreakings beyond saying "a burglar had been terrorizing the Anfield district at the time"? It must be in the police case files as it was their immediate theory. But nobody mentions it? So what is going on with that... It seems like purposeful suppression of information... Perhaps fear of living relatives attempting lawsuits?... It is blatantly important information to know that a total of 20 to 30 break ins had been committed in the district (one as recent as a month ago) ALL using a "duplicate" or "skeleton" key. Which would obviously make someone think twice about whether no forced entry definitely = willful admittance. And especially the similarity in the scene of the crime.

I mentioned Goodman in the post above. I’d imagine that the main reason that the police didn’t lend any weight to any theory involving the Housebreaker was the Qualtrough phone call. It would have been obvious to them that the call and the murder were connected and so this separated the crime from the Housebreaker’s.

As the Johnston’s key appeared to fit the Wallace’s door it seems that security wasn’t great at that time. The Housebreaker might have just had a bunch of skeleton keys which didn’t the job?

[moste]

Quote ..As the Johnston’s key appeared to fit the Wallace’s door it seems that security wasn’t great at that time. The Housebreaker might have just had a bunch of skeleton keys which didn’t the job?

Yes, thinking on the skeleton key business and break ins. A private landlord would have duplicate keys, and would require notice if people wanted to change the locks or have them re- keyed . However , given the crime climate in that area people would be doing that regardless would you not think?

[moste]

Hi WWH, I see your digging towards the Anfield burglar theory. If Wallace is innocent , it's my preferred outcome. The statement by Wallace regarding the cash box is the only connection with somebody knowing 'the Wallace/insurance money situation's.
Wallace may have lied about that to incriminate others . Otherwise it could easily be 'Anfield burglary 'gone wrong IMO

[WallaceWackedHer]

As the Johnston’s key appeared to fit the Wallace’s door it seems that security wasn’t great at that time. The Housebreaker might have just had a bunch of skeleton keys which didn’t the job?

Not only did the person(s) involved have a duplicate key(s), but ALSO intimate knowledge of the interior of the homes AND where the valuables were kept, apparently. In both of these crimes on Wolverton Street (there were others in early 1930 apparently, but I cannot find details), the intruder, for whatever reason, decided to ONLY steal the "nest egg", ignore all other valuables, and randomly chucked pillows and stuff around.

Now, houses number 19 and 29, does anyone know if they had been rented - because we KNOW Wallace rented the home at 29 Wolverton Street? Does anyone know if the residents of #19 hired a cleaning lady (particularly if it was Draper)? Does anyone know if they were also renting? And how about the other homes that had been entered. Had they been rented?

Yes we do know the Johnstons had keys which fit house #29, and also it was only their fingerprints and Wallace's (as well as the detectives etc.) found at the scene - although many prints were blurred and of no use. We also know they coincidentally turned up at just the right time, at which point, having gone to the front door, Wallace's back door was now unlocked. We also know that Mr. Johnston had to wake up early for his work at the shipyard, so a visit to a relative so late at night is unusual, and that he had a colleague who lived at 30 Menlove Gardens West, who he stopped visiting after the crime. They were also a hard up family and moved out the very next day, which is a tactic employed by some other guilty parties like Steuerman in the Tankleff crimes. We also see his contradictory information in statements made to the press, and in court, where he had initially claimed Wallace "forced the door open" pushing on it very hard, but in court said he opened it very easily.

What I'm curious to ascertain, is whether they only had keys to access the back door, or if the front door would also allow access. The reason for the importance of this, is the fact that the yard door was left unbolted while the front had the latch on. This of course suggests that the intruder left through the back, into the entry between the houses.

Now is it plausible to think that Julia would neglect to bolt the yard door allowing someone to easily enter the yard? Wallace seemed to imply she was a cautious woman and he would have expected her to bolt the door. Had the intruder scaled the wall? APPARENTLY this was SOMEHOW "tested" by detectives/forensics, but HOW exactly they could know this seems a bit of an impossibility and I'm not sure if it's exactly strong evidence.

Then one has to figure out why Julia was in the parlor. It does suggest a guest, but would she have potentially seeked refuge in the comfy chairs in that room, and perhaps dozed off due to her illness? IF the intruder gained willful entrance, then it strongly suggests, that either one person had distracted Julia in the parlor (perhaps with Puss or something like that) while another entered through the back using a duplicate key... Or that he/she/they had entered through the front door with the express intent of committing murder, and staging the scene to resemble the house at #19 which had been burgled a month prior.

Had someone known who was involved in the crime spree in the area and threatened them to murder Wallace's wife (or steal from the home on their behalf)? Could Parry be involved in such a housebreaking syndicate, of which there were many? I do NOT believe Parry would have wanted Julia (or even Wallace) to be killed, if he was involved. I would rather suggest he gave some information... But then how would Parry ALSO have known of the location of the savings at number 19 Wolverton Street? The fact of the matter is, that the intruder in BOTH cases knew EXACTLY where the nest eggs were, replaced the containers after thieving from them, and disappeared into the night. So why would Parry necessarily be needed? ANY neighbor of Wallace could easily have known that he tends to attend chess on Monday nights. It's not even remotely a stretch of imagination that this should be known by several neighbors.

I still would focus on the killer's home (or another in the syndicate) being located within the area of the red box. So the odd numbered side of Wolverton Street, or the Richmond Park side.

---

I am NOT saying this WAS a robbery. But it was either staged to purposefully look as such by someone who wanted her dead (or hired them to do the deed), or there was a big error regarding Julia. As a reclusive woman, perhaps it was not known that Wallace even had a wife (a bit of a stretch - I admit), or, perhaps there was some plan involving getting the reclusive Julia to also leave the home, which backfired.

---

At this moment I would try to focus on any residents living within the marked red box, landlords, and cleaning ladies. Anyone who could easily slip away unnoticed, and anyone who could give/know intimate information about the home and its contents.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Also, evidence supporting Wallace's complete innocence can be found. How? Well... Consider that 99.9999% of the evidence against him comes via lies, retracted statements, or other implausible behaviors.

But pair this with two things:

1) Wallace had worked at the Pru for 16 years, and had NEVER been promoted.

2) He spoke about "J Lays 1989" (or something, in any case BOTH the author's name AND the date were wrong), as it was actually J Leys, and he had no books out that year. YES this diary MAY have contained entries specifically to suggest certain things to the police - like his terror at his wife's brief absence.

3) Take the above two facts, and consider that:

a. Wallace referred to Qualtrough as "A.M. Qualtrough", "Qualthorpe". said his appointment had been for "tuesday the 21st" at "Menlove Avenue East".

b. Did not realize the iron bar and poker were missing (though curiously did notice the bondage equipment had been missing - for a year lmfao).

c. Wallace was known as a TERRIBLE chess player.

---

So the evidence suggesting Wallace is guilty, to my mind, comes purely from the stretch of imagination it takes to picture him as a total idiot. HOWEVER, if it can be shown that he WAS this dumb, and prone to mistakes, OR that he was suffering early signs of dementia, anything of the likes, then it now becomes quite a lot more likely that this is an innocent man. A total idiot, possibly with some memory problem, being easily tricked out of his home, and thus explaining all of his lies, retractions, and unnatural statements.

Something for you to consider...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi WWH, you appear to be moving away from believing Wallace to have been guilty (nothing wrong with that of course) I see the case when broken down into the separate aspects as pointing pretty overwhelmingly toward Wallace and away from other explanations.

Parry had an alibi for the time of the murder and so can be eliminated as the murderer and his actions on the night of the murder don’t speak of a man taking part in any kind of plan. Only two things ‘connect’ him. That he knew of Wallace’s business dealings and Parkes (in my opinion one of the least likely things in the whole case.)

Marsden is a peripheral character who had a decent job and was about to marry into a well-to-do family. So it’s difficult to see why he would involve himself. He had a customer called Qualtrough but the name wasn’t exclusive to him. There was the shop for example or any number of ways that Wallace might have heard the name before.

For me, the suggestion of the Anfield Housebreaker falls on the phone call which I just can’t see as unconnected. The caller was either the murderer or connected closely to the crime.

Your points above:

1. This might also point to Wallace feeling that he’d never gotten the appreciation that he deserved.

2. To be honest it’s been a while since I read Gannon so I can’t recall the significance of the ‘Lays’ point.

3a. Could be seen as Wallace trying to distance himself from any real knowledge of the crime.

3b. Pretty much ditto. I don’t recall mention of the dog whip but this could be seen as Wallace attempting to throw doubt on either the existence of the bar or his knowledge of it. “I can recall that we used to have a dog whip but I can’t recall seeing an iron bar.” I don’t think that we can assume anything sexual about the dog whip. If it was used for those purposes Wallace would hardly have brought it up in conversation inviting someone to ask what it was used for.

3c. I don’t think that we can say that Wallace was a terrible chess player. He just wasn’t in the clubs top tier. On the Monday night he’d won his game after all and I seem to recall that it was against a player that was considered better than him.

Wallace certainly wasn’t an idiot. He had his own laboratory. He’d lectured on chemistry. Whilst this doesn’t prove him a genius it shows that he was an intelligent man. As he carried out his job efficiently and no one reported any signs of dementia or anything like it and from his statements and testimony in court I think that we can safely say that there were no issues in that area.

I think that the advantage of Wallace as a suspect is that we don’t need any stretches of imagination, leaps of faith or conspiracy.

Wallace, unhappy with his life and suspecting that he might not have long left, decides not to spend his remaining years nursemaiding Julia. He comes up with a plan where he can kill his wife and make it look like someone had made a bogus call to get him out of the house to steal his takings with Julia getting in the way. He has a ready made, potential pair of scapegoats in Parry and Marsden. He goes around the Mossley Park area as if he’s Indiana Jones searching for the Lost Ark. He finally becomes worried and goes home. He pretends that he can’t get in to give the impression that the killer might still be in the house. When he gets inside, supposedly frantic with worry, he walks straight past the Parlour to go upstairs.

Wallace lied to Beattie and Caird about being cleared by the police and tried to pressure Beattie on the time of the call and then gives an evasive answer to the police’s question. He also tried to distance himself from the suggestion that he’d believed that someone was still in the house until he was pressed on it. He ‘forgets’ to mention in his statements that he’d knocked on Joseph Crewe’s door in an area that he’d spent the whole evening claiming to be unfamiliar with (yet he’d bern to Crewe’s house half a dozen times before.)

I still believe that Wallace is overwhelmingly the likeliest candidate.