Julie Wallace

[Tom_Wescott]

Marko,

I apologize for boring you, but if you've posted in depth about your reasoning elsewhere on the boards, perhaps you wouldn't mind providing me a link or copy and pasting those posts here so you don't have to retype them? I am interested to know why you're convinced of Wallace's innocence in relation to the time element. There is, after all, quite a big difference between being not convinced of his guilt and believing him innocent of the crime. I find that building a case based on time element alone is dangerous, since there's too many variables. Some of the witnesses (such as Close) changed their mind regarding the time, other witnesses weren't sure, others were sure but the timepieces they worked from could have been wrong, etc. In short, what I'm saying is that Wallace certainly had plenty of time in which to commit the murder, steady himself, and go about his way.

Babybird,

Jonathan Goodman argued feverishly in defense of Wallace, but I believe he was relatively fair in presenting enough evidence that a reader could make up his own mind. It's really nothing more than a domestic homicide case, with the intrigue of the 'mysterious phone call' thrown in the mix.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I've said it before on countless occasions (so much so that I'm now bored repeating it) but not one Wallaceite has ever convinced me how he managed to do it in the time and the fact that the bath had not been used and there was no bloodstaining on WHW person/clothing.

Since you're not going to reply, I'll go ahead and address your area of concern. It doesn't seem all that mysterious to me. Julia was found on the parlour floor with her head bashed in. The maid, who had last visited the house a week before, noticed that an iron rod was missing from the parlour. This rod was about a foot long and thick as a candle. Dr. McFall said this was consistent with the wounds received by Julia. A few years after the murder, Wallace had moved out and the new tenants went to convert the house from gas to electric. They removed the front of the fireplace and found tucked behind it this missing iron bar. It's inconceivable that the bar, on its own volition, found it's way into this tiny space, all by itself, in the 7 days from when it was last witnessed by the maid and when Julia was murdered. it's only logical to conclude it was the murder weapon. Since no burglar wound have had the inclination or opportunity to hide it in such a place, we have to conclude that Wallace himself did it. Had the juries and public been aware of all this in 1931, there would have been no doubt in their minds as to his guilt.

As to how Wallace escaped becoming bloody, there must be a number of viable explanations. One that came to my mind that I feel is a very likely explanation has to do with Wallace's macintosh found partially burned under the body of Julia. There's no good reason she was wearing this macintosh on her own, so its presence there is mysterious unless we consider it as part of the crime itself. Wallace, for whatever reason, hit Julia over the head with the bar. She fell to the floor, dead or unconscious. Wallace went for his macintosh, placed it over her head, and proceeded to beat her violently, the macintosh protecting him from becoming bloody. The telltale portion of the macintosh that bore the blow marks was placed in the fire to burn away the evidence. It was then placed under her shoulders and the bar was hidden behind the fireplace hearth. He then split to take part in his Menlove Gardens alibi.

Anyway, these are the thoughts that occurred to me while reading Goodman's book. Any criticisms or thoughts would be appreciated.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Marko]

I haven't had access to the computer until now. Apologies for the delay. Btw, I made literally countless posts on this forum but they were lost when the forum 'crashed' a few years ago. I don't think they have been recovered and unfortunately I never made copies.

I have to say that I have read practically everything about this case. I have every book on the subject. I also have the complete Police File, trial transcript and almost every newspaper cutting from the day and I am still not sure either way!! I lean to the side of Wallace's innocence though.

In reply to your points;

1). Regarding the iron bar - . I wouldn't believe too much about the iron bar being situated behind the fireplace. The place was stripped after the murder and I'm sure an iron bar wouldn't have escaped the notices of the police. Yes, the maid says that there was an iron bar. This isn't enough to convict somebody of murder. a) She might have been mistaken. b) Wallace said himself there was no iron bar. The bar was supposed to have been rusty, yet there was no sign of any 'rust' in the wounds of Mrs Wallace.

2) It is highly unlikely that Wallace wore the mackintosh - the burns on it were consistent with Julia having it thrown around her shoulders and fallen onto the fire. McFall agreed with this. There were also burn marks on Julia's skirt. MacFall in fact stated that the body had been dead 'two hours' before he arrived. In other words at 7.45. Wallace at this time was on Allerton Road 4 miles away.

3) Time factor - there was roughly a pint and a half of blood spilled. It is inconceivable that the murderer would have eluded blood spatter. The bath and bathroom appliances were tested and found to have not been used. There was no blood on Wallace's person/clothing. Close said he was at number 29 Wolverton Street at a quarter to seven. Elsie Wright, Kenneth Caird and Douglas Metcalf all claimed that Close said it was a 'quarter to seven'. James Allison Wildman claimed it was about 6.37-38 that he saw Close on the Wallace doorstep. Wallace had to get to the corner of Smithdown Place at no later than 7.06, thereby making it almost impossible to get to the specified place in such a time. I have timed all these things myself, and it seems highly improbable that WHW could have committed such an action. The Holy Trinity Church clock was certainly not wrong - it had been set on the friday before. It was this clock that Wildman had seen on his newspaper round.

Regards

Mark

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Mark, thanks for the reply. I did in fact go searching on here for your earlier posts and found none. Shame about that crash! I'm impressed that you have so much material on the case. How did you come about getting the police file and trial transcript? I'd love of a copy of that myself! On a side note, is there anywhere I can get a copy of the 2001 book 'The Murder of Julia Wallace' at a relatively decent price? Amazon is selling it for $253, which is absurd for such a recent book.

Regarding your post, I'm afraid I can't lend any credence to Dr. McFall's findings as they relate to time of death. I agree with Goodman that his performance was deficient at best, criminally negligent at worst. I also agree that the jury were biased and that Wallace didn't get a fair trial and should have been found not guilty. And this even though I believe he was in fact guilty!

[/quote] Wallace said himself there was no iron bar.[/quote]

The maid said there was an iron bar in the parlor that was missing. This very iron bar later showed up in that very room. The fact that Wallace denied the existence of this bar is suspicious as hell. Like I said, the only logical conclusion is that it was the murder weapon. And if it was the murder weapon, then Wallace had to be the killer. There would be no rust in the wounds if the killer were striking the macintosh.

I find it very hard to swallow that the portion of the macintosh over Julia's shoulder should get burned while she was wearing it, but not her clothes underneath, her flesh, or hair. What I see happening in this room is the destruction of evidence by someone who could not take the evidence out of the house with him.

I'm not at all convinced by the evidence of the children. Your entire reason for finding Wallace innocent rests on two kids who may or may not be telling the truth. If we remove Close from the equation, Wallace has no exculpatory evidence, and by your own admission you'd see him as guilty.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NickB]

Dr MacFall examined the body at 10.10 and thought the death had occurred about four hours previously. It was a Professor of Pathology who suggested the death happened after 7.00.

For me the frenzied nature of the murder does not fit Wallace. This would mean he calmly planned the murder in advance then, as soon as the milkman left, turned into a frenzy to commit it and then returned to being calm.

It seems to me more likely that a highly strung robber committed it. Bear in mind the chess captain said it had “certainly not” been Wallace on the phone.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Nick, and thanks for that piece of info. According to the FBI and their manual on criminal behavior, blunt force trauma is exceedingly rare in burglaries, but is one of the most common types of murder seen in domestic homicide. The blunt force trauma and overkill seen on Julia is classic domestic homicide. But how many burglars do you know break in (with leaving no evidence of a break in), brutally beat a woman to death with an iron bar they pick up in the room, hide the iron bar behind the fire place, and leave...latching the door behind them...without actually robbing the place. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NickB]

An unplanned domestic murder is more likely to result in overkill than a violent burglary, but Wallace (if he did it) pre-planned this murder meticulously.

And although you could claim Wallace staged it, there was a robbery.

[Marko]

Hi Tom

I accessed the police file in 2007 through persistence. It was supposed to be £2000 but I didn’t have to pay that (I wouldn’t have done either!). I was slightly disappointed though. The file has been decimated and a lot of the documents are photocopies...Btw I am hoping to write a book on the case…

I am pretty sure Murphy’s The Murder of Julia Wallace will be reprinted by Bluecoat Press. They do reprint editions. If I were you, I would try to locate a copy through the library system or second hand bookshops online. $253 is extreme!!

I agree with you re: MacFall. In truth, he wasn’t that great a pathologist – the lack of taking a body/room temperature at the crime scene bears this out…He also contradicted himself regularly during the case. He changed his opinion more times than Liz Taylor has married . MacFall also claimed that the instrument used was something like a large ‘club’ with a heavy head only to contradict this later…

As I stated in an earlier post, Goodman’s presumption of the iron bar behind the fireplace was based on workers some time after the killing. I think James Murphy states in TMOJW that the whole room (fireplace and all) was stripped and no bar was found. I agree with him on that – I cannot believe such an item would escape the police. I also cannot believe for the life of me that a guilty Wallace would leave the weapon at the scene. It defies belief.

The part of the mackintosh that was burned had the rings of the fire on it, as did Julia’s skirt. If a guilty Wallace would have handled a bloodstained item the traces of blood would have been there, particularly beneath the fingernails.

You are wrong to claim my entire reason for it depends on the kids – I have many reasons and there are many factors that make me unsure – the kids is just one of them. I also cannot believe the pure random messy method is something that Wallace would have done. The whole thing was fraught with danger. If he wanted to kill his wife, then why didn’t he go on a holiday to a secluded spot and push her over a cliff?

Nick: No. In MacFall’s original statement he claims The death occurred about two hours before I arrived (my italics). MacFall arrived at about 9.50, thereby making it possible that death occurred at that time. I agree totally with you regarding Beattie stating that the voice sounded nothing like Wallace's.

Tom: I am not a great believer in criminal profiling…To me it is not an exact science. It would be dangerous to come to any conclusions because of profiling. We don't know exactly how a homicidal maniac will act.

The possibility of a robbery should not be overlooked. It is possible that somebody could have gained access through several ways:
1) By Julia openly admitting them
2) By duplicate key
3) By sneaking in through the back door. WHW himself said that Julia came to the back door with him. She might have inadvertently left the scullery door open.

Nick you are right - there was a robbery - there was actually £4 missing from the house.

Regards

Mark

[Marko]

Here's a link to our thread that appears on Yo! Liverpool Forum;

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3494&highlight=Julia+Wallace

Be warned - it is over 70 pages long and has over 700 posts

[NickB]

I’ve read through all those pages! Opinion seems to be heavily in favour of Wallace.

My source for McFall’s evidence at the trial is ‘Verdict in dispute’ by Edgar Lustgarten.

McFall starts by saying “death had taken place at least four hours before”. Later, in response to the judge, he modifies this slightly saying “the woman had been dead about four hours”.

Of course this still put the killing at before 6.30, so Oliver (Counsel for the Defence) points out “If she was alive at half past six, your opinion is wrong”, and McFall responds “Yes”.

[Tom_Wescott]

Mark,

I'm sorry to hear you got ripped off with that police file. Good thing you didn't pay all that money! I would imagine the trial transcript is available publicly somewhere, is it not?

Mark and Nick,

At this juncture, I find there's just too many leaps of logic required to presume Wallace is innocent. The lion's share of evidence and reason points to his guilt. I'll go into that more later, but let me say that based on how the trial was ran, I believe he SHOULD have been found 'Not Guilty'. Although I think he was guilty, I don't think the prosecutor proved their burden and the jury indeed seems to have been biased. I also think McFall had too much faith in his own opinions and therefore much of the medical evidence in this case is useless. Having said that, I don't know that I think the police were as incompetent as Goodman makes them out in his book. Sure they made mistakes, but focusing in on Wallace early in the investigation was not one of them.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Marko]

Hi Tom

Yes, the trial transcript was one of the items amongst the file held at the police hq (I think there is also a copy held at the National Archives at Kew).

Yes Nick, MacFall did say the murder was committed four hours earlier than his arrival (about 6.00pm) but in his first statement he said that it was 2 hours before. Tom re: MacFall -you're right - he thought of himself as a bit of a 'Spilsbury' but he wasn't - the errors in his methods would bear this out...
I have to say that I believe the lion's share of the evidence is as much in favour of Wallace's innocence as his guilt. Don't get me wrong, I am not 100% sure but if I had to fall down on one side, it would be for his innocence. There are some that believe WHW hired a 'contract killer' to do the job...I'm not sure about that one - it would take an immense amount of trust...
The blood spatter was up to 7 feet up the walls in some places.
I also agree with you regarding the police - I don't think they were as incompetent as they were made out. I suppose for 1931, the thought of any forensic/crime scene evidence was not too high on the agenda.

Regards

Mark

[Marko]

I’ve read through all those pages! Opinion seems to be heavily in favour of Wallace.

My source for McFall’s evidence at the trial is ‘Verdict in dispute’ by Edgar Lustgarten.

McFall starts by saying “death had taken place at least four hours before”. Later, in response to the judge, he modifies this slightly saying “the woman had been dead about four hours”.

Of course this still put the killing at before 6.30, so Oliver (Counsel for the Defence) points out “If she was alive at half past six, your opinion is wrong”, and McFall responds “Yes”.

Bravo Nick! You deserve a gold medal for trawling through all those pages

Yes, MacFall still stuck to his guns that it was 6.00pm. Believe it or not, some of the prosecution team were convinced that milkboy Close didn't speak to Julia, but to Wallace dressed as Julia!!! How he managed to pass himself off as a woman of 5"2 when he was 6"2 is anybody's guess...

Lustgarten's Verdict in Dispute is a great book.

[NickB]

Strange then that at the trial when MacFall said 4 hours, the Defence did not put to him that he had said 2 hours originally.

Regarding Wallace having an accomplice, wouldn’t he have needed one anyway to make the phone call? Beattie was certain it was not Wallace on the phone, who he was talking to in person shortly afterwards.

[Marko]

Strange then that at the trial when MacFall said 4 hours, the Defence did not put to him that he had said 2 hours originally.

Regarding Wallace having an accomplice, wouldn’t he have needed one anyway to make the phone call? Beattie was certain it was not Wallace on the phone, who he was talking to in person shortly afterwards.

I agree Nick - there was a lot the defence team didn't do/say that could have benefited Wallace's case. I am not completely convinced Roland Oliver believed his client was innocent...In his summing up, Oliver told the jury; 'You may think that the accused might have committed the act but on the other hand, it might also be said that it is consistent with somebody else having done it...'. One cannot imagine Edward Marshall Hall defending his client with a statement like this...

There is a possibility that Wallace could have disguised his voice on the telephone although I am not sure about that...