Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

[WallaceWackedHer]

Just to add.....regardless of the location of the conductor Wallace might simply have have reasoned like this....by the time the police got into checking the Monday night trams would the conductor have been likely not only to have not only remembered Wallace but also at what stop he’d actually boarded? This might have been days after the event and even if the conductor might felt that he’d gotten on near the phone box a Defence Barrister would have asked if the conductor could remember all of his passengers and when they got on or off?

Im only saying that this might very well have been Wallace’s thinking. In the end it didn’t matter because the police didn’t check the Monday trams (for which they should have been heavily criticised.) So whilst I certainly accept the doubt I believe that we have a possible explanation which, if correct, leaves no barrier (in my opinion) to Wallace being the sole perpetrator of Julia’s murder.

If you gave me enough time I could show you that Wallace as the caller is a terrible candidate. It's actually easier for him to be the killer. As the caller he just doesn't work well at all, unless you're trying to force him to be to make a solution.

[WallaceWackedHer]

This is at odds WWH with what James Caird replied when questioned at the Liverpool Police Court by prosecution counsel J.R. Bishop on February 19th....

Is that on the trial? If that were true I would pounce on that like a jaguar because his police statement says otherwise... But Wyndham-Brown's transcript has Caird saying that he told Wallace he HAD heard of one person by that name.

[Sherlock Houses]

Is that on the trial? If that were true I would pounce on that like a jaguar because his police statement says otherwise... But Wyndham-Brown's transcript has Caird saying that he told Wallace he HAD heard of one person by that name.

As I mentioned in my previous post Caird's evidence was given at the Liverpool Police Court [no.2 court] on February 19th. This was Wallace's third appearance at the Court since his arrest a couple of weeks earlier and marked the first day of the Committal Proceedings, a full two months before the actual trial took place.

[WallaceWackedHer]

As I mentioned in my previous post Caird's evidence was given at the Liverpool Police Court [no.2 court] on February 19th. This was Wallace's third appearance at the Court since his arrest a couple of weeks earlier and marked the first day of the Committal Proceedings, a full two months before the actual trial took place.

Isn't that interesting... So you're saying he either lied/made a mistake in one of his court testimonies?

I'm not up on court proceedings it confuses me that there's like multiple trials and coroners trials and all that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you gave me enough time I could show you that Wallace as the caller is a terrible candidate. It's actually easier for him to be the killer. As the caller he just doesn't work well at all, unless you're trying to force him to be to make a solution.

I’m open to an explanation and I’m not trying to force him into any kind of solution. I try to stay clear of unnecessary complications.

• Parry had an alibi from those at the Brine’s, the paper shop and then Hignett’s - conclusion.....he couldn’t have killed her.
• The suggestion that Wallace took advantage of a prank call - to be honest i tend to put this idea almost in the same league as MacFail suggestion that Wallace himself might have answered the door to Close dressed as Julia.
• I simply can’t see the normally cautious Wallace trusting the untrustworthy Parry with something so important and then, after the Appeal, he proceeds to accuse him of the murder (risking exposure.)
• Despite errors and potentially strange behaviour I see no solid reason to suspect the Johnston’s or Caird or Amy of being involved.

Then I look at Wallace.

• To me the level of viciousness more likely speaks of anger, resentment, hatred. We can only name Wallace who might have had this. Yes most people who knew them said that they appeared happy but people do put on a front especially in that era. Two people that actually spent a lot of time with them, a doctor and a nurse, both said that their marriage was an unhappy one. Wallace’s ex-colleague Mather called Wallace - a the most soured man he’d ever met and a bad tempered devil.
• Only Wallace could have used the phone call and been 100% certain that he would have taken the bait and gone looking for MGE.
• The call was at almost the exact time that Wallace would have gotten there if he’d left the house when he said that he did.
• Whilst not conclusive, Wallace’s behaviour on the journey seems over the top. He wasn’t journeying into darkest Africa after all. He wasn’t that unfamiliar with the area.
• Wallace’s persistence might also appear over the top after being told twice (once by a police officer) that MGE did not exist. After the newsagent he spoke of becoming concerned about Julia but didn’t he become concerned after Green or Constable Serjeant or The Post Office?
• Then we have Wallace unable to get in. Personally I’m not averse to accepting a coincidence or two but we have to realise this - that the first time ever that Wallace is unable to get in past a faulty backdoor lock is the time that his wife lay dead in the Parlour. For me he was play acting.
• Wallace claim to have begun to get worried after the newsagent. He then can’t get into the house when he gets home. He must have been extremely worried by then and when he finally gets in and sees the broken cupboard in the kitchen all thoughts of an innocent explanation must have vanished. He would have been desperate to find Julia so why, when he gets to the hall doorway and is within reach of the Parlour door, does he walk past it to go upstairs? I can’t see anyone doing this. It would have taken him all of three seconds to check. I can’t give a solid reason why he would have gone upstairs rather than tried the Parlour but there are possibles.
• Only with Wallace as the murderer can we explain the presence and the position of the mackintosh.
• Any spur of the moment killer would have taken no precaution against getting covered in blood. They would also have had no reason to get no blood outside of the room. There was no blood on gas lights, walls, door knobs or the gate.
• I think that Wallace is the likeliest to have taken away the murder weapon.
• Why would another killer have bothered turning off the lights? Only Wallace has a reason for doing so.
• If the killer talked his way in at the front door he was taking a huge risk of being seen in a fairly narrow street.

These are some of the reasons why I go for Wallace. I accept that I could be wrong of course. I also accept that if we could prove the existence of an accomplice then the case would be stronger. This is just how I see it at this point in time though.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Some parts just don't work hence the century of argument. But to prove why to people who have a very strong opinion obv I need to get new information from the files.

As said the accent, first hand accounts, and tram route given make no sense. He'd need an alternate means of getting to the club like hitching a ride from a friend to comfortably lie about the route before he knows there's good reason to. Stuff about the conductor being somewhere else etc. that's a forced puzzle piece, it doesn't work very well.

It's a way better fit he meets someone at the junction and they go opposite directions, or someone like Parry was coming down Breck Road on their way to somewhere else (for Parry, Lily's house) and saw him and thus thought it would be funny to place such a call. Gordon Parry was known to make calls like that in funny voices for a laugh. Nowhere near the same level as Wallace dressing as Julia since that's close to impossible.

Wallace calling, it has to be shown he anticipated the police questioning operators and thus faked the accent (convincingly), and knew the call booth could be traced so faked the route... Though clearly if he knew the latter he'd be MUCH safer using a weird botanical poison and making it look like her lung infection deteriorated and killed her. Trust me he'd get away with that. OR he purposefully wanted to make it so he could be caught, to purposefully play cat and mouse with the law knowing he's dying anyway.

Parry is quite difficult to take out of the box without desperately trying to do so, but if you could, a better fit would still be someone other than Wallace like one of the chess club members or an accomplice of a chess club member.

Mather means nothing because Wallace had many colleagues and it appears he just didn't like him... It doesn't seem like he had any problems with any other colleague or client... If there was trouble in that house I think the Johnston and Holme family are covering for him, perhaps being convinced of his innocence or threatened in some way. I live on a terraced street and have had bad marriages in the home next to me. It's not something you can miss even in the era of television sets being turned on etc.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE].
Mather means nothing because Wallace had many colleagues and it appears he just didn't like him... It doesn't seem like he had any problems with any other colleague or client... If there was trouble in that house I think the Johnston and Holme family are covering for him, perhaps being convinced of his innocence or threatened in some way. I live on a terraced street and have had bad marriages in the home next to me. It's not something you can miss even in the era of television sets being turned on etc.

[QUOTE]



Not all unhappy marriages involve blazing rows though.

[WallaceWackedHer]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n727406][QUOTE].
Mather means nothing because Wallace had many colleagues and it appears he just didn't like him... It doesn't seem like he had any problems with any other colleague or client... If there was trouble in that house I think the Johnston and Holme family are covering for him, perhaps being convinced of his innocence or threatened in some way. I live on a terraced street and have had bad marriages in the home next to me. It's not something you can miss even in the era of television sets being turned on etc.

Not all unhappy marriages involve blazing rows though.

Maybe, maybe not... I would probably suggest they did hear some upheaval from time to time and didn't mention it. You might consider an occasional argument normal even (it's weird to NEVER fight as the Johnstons claimed was true of the Wallaces).

So say we assume William killed Julia... That part is much more possible than him ringing... A suggestion of a musical evening from Wallace sets the stage, he's naturally by his violin case which is roughly where the killer stood should forensics be correct... A weird position btw, since Julia is likely on her knees lighting the fire, and she's hit to the LEFT of her head, so the killer is standing around that chair or in that little crevice where the photographs are... It's also odd she's not first hit on the back of the head when you think about it.

Wallace is standing there in his mackintosh over a shirt, trousers, and socks, wearing a pair of gloves. Newspaper wrapped around a blunt instrument to be REALLY safe. Would take no time at all to kill her. The mackintosh is quickly removed and chucked into the fire. We see that doesn't work out too well for him. Everything else was perhaps chucked in the kitchen fire (a fire which was still alight when he returned, and rekindled by Florence and William) and incinerated totally. Pretty common means of disposal actually, Borden springs to mind... Being nude under the jacket makes the crime HARDER to commit because any splashes would transfer onto the inside of clothing put on afterwards... The other suggestion in the books I read was him using it like a bullfighter's cape holding it out in front of him.

We look at where bloodstains were found OUTSIDE of the parlour and see that they are in the ONLY two rooms in which there was a gas light burning, the middle bedroom and bathroom. We know Wallace claims he changed up there in that room, combed his hair in the bathroom and such... Meaningful? And it is weird he plants his fingers on those notes in the jar in front of the officer, like he knows they're stained and needs a witness to explain how it might have happened.

I've run it through in my head 1000 times how Julia could POSSIBLY have fallen into that fire skirt-first without some sort of struggle, and I can't see how it could happen. There would have had to have been a struggle. Otherwise either the mackintosh catching alight OR some OTHER item catching alight and setting fire to BOTH the mackintosh and skirt, is what caused the skirt burns as far as I can tell... Might actually make sense if she was wearing it round her shoulders to be honest, since she would naturally slump upper-body-first following the trajectory of the weapon's strike.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem with the idea of the mackintosh being thrown onto the fire, for me, is that it would surely have burnt far more than it actually did. It would also have been pretty obvious that it had been on the fire too. Extensive burning, ash, dust etc.

I suspect that Wallace was in the parlour alone at first. Then when Julia closed the front door on Alan Close William called and asked her to bring his mackintosh in. As she handed it to him, in front of the fire, he struck the first blow whilst she still had a grip on the coat. She then slumped against the fire pulling the mackintosh down with her which caused the burning and the singeing. Wallace then pulled her away from the fire then, using the mackintosh as a shield, he delivered the rest of the blows.

Personally I think the the mackintosh bunched up beneath Julia’s body pretty much nails Wallace on its own. It couldn’t have ended up like that naturally and no one else would have bothered to have done it. If Wallace had used it as a shield then wedging it under her body would serve to smudge any evidence of blood-spattering. And blood spattering could only incriminate Wallace.

[WallaceWackedHer]

The problem with the idea of the mackintosh being thrown onto the fire, for me, is that it would surely have burnt far more than it actually did. It would also have been pretty obvious that it had been on the fire too. Extensive burning, ash, dust etc.

I suspect that Wallace was in the parlour alone at first. Then when Julia closed the front door on Alan Close William called and asked her to bring his mackintosh in. As she handed it to him, in front of the fire, he struck the first blow whilst she still had a grip on the coat. She then slumped against the fire pulling the mackintosh down with her which caused the burning and the singeing. Wallace then pulled her away from the fire then, using the mackintosh as a shield, he delivered the rest of the blows.

Personally I think the the mackintosh bunched up beneath Julia’s body pretty much nails Wallace on its own. It couldn’t have ended up like that naturally and no one else would have bothered to have done it. If Wallace had used it as a shield then wedging it under her body would serve to smudge any evidence of blood-spattering. And blood spattering could only incriminate Wallace.

It doesn't work with that solution. He's so bothered about timing and getting out clean but delivers the first and hardest blow with no protection? And somehow Julia is positioned facing the fireplace probably kneeling down while apparently handing the coat over?

The room looks like it's set up for music, the violin case is positioned roughly where the first blow was administered. Julia's bent down on her knees, not watching him. He probably has stuff ready and waiting there for him to use considering that is very premeditated.

There was relatively extensive burning on the jacket as I recall. But sources differ (though there were definitely charred fragments of mackintosh dotted around). It's the skirt that was less burned. I could imagine the jacket slipping off the fireplace rather than staying glued in place as it burned... Of course, safety grids exist for a reason, you don't just get set on fire by brushing past it as far as I'm aware. It's more like the grid was off or there was prolonged contact. Either way close proximity is needed.

Perhaps, even, attempts were made to set Julia's body on fire to destroy possible clues like the wounds. But the flames just petered out... Either way we know there was a fire and it went out, by itself or otherwise. Everything else he had worn would have been totally cindered. And depending on whether he left with a briefcase, other extremely easy assumptions could be made.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whatever their relative positions what other explanation can account for the mackintosh being bunched up beneath Julia unless it was placed there purposely? If she’d have had it over her shoulders it would have just fallen to the floor or onto the fire. It got burnt so it had to have been moved from contact with the fire to beneath Julia. By William imo. I think that the burning on the mackintosh was occurred at the same time as the singeing to Julia’s skirt which suggests to me that she fell against the fire whilst clutching the mackintosh or maybe it got entangled if Wallace used it for the initial blow to protect against blood spatter

The suggestion about a musical evening being the pretext for getting Julia into the parlour is entirely plausible of course.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Whatever their relative positions what other explanation can account for the mackintosh being bunched up beneath Julia unless it was placed there purposely? If she’d have had it over her shoulders it would have just fallen to the floor or onto the fire. It got burnt so it had to have been moved from contact with the fire to beneath Julia. By William imo. I think that the burning on the mackintosh was occurred at the same time as the singeing to Julia’s skirt which suggests to me that she fell against the fire whilst clutching the mackintosh or maybe it got entangled if Wallace used it for the initial blow to protect against blood spatter

The suggestion about a musical evening being the pretext for getting Julia into the parlour is entirely plausible of course.

Julia's body isn't where she would have fallen initially, we don't know what the positions of her and the mackintosh were until she was discovered. She could have been moved onto it coincidentally during the act or who knows.

She's not clutching the jacket, why would she be? She's bending or kneeling down doing something with the fireplace. I think her handing it to William could be ruled out unless forensics are wrong. I believe all were in agreement as to the body's position when struck. It is also bad as an idea from his end, bringing him his jacket she'd have to be facing him and then you'd expect her to see it coming and have reflexive movements that may cause defensive wounds.

I don't think there's any entanglement. There'd have to be a struggle. I doubt Julia would remain conscious for even a millisecond after that first hit, she's a frail old lady. I've been unexpectedly blindsided by makeshift belt buckle knuckledusters, she's definitely going lights out the second that bar or whatever hits her.

The blood on the sleeve is similar to the girl who shot her parents in the pink bathrobe. Same heavy staining up one side.

I also noticed in this case (Wallace) there's rumors of one single glove in Parry's car. In the OJ Simpson case, also for some reason there was one glove at the scene and he kept one. I have never understood that. It seems to be a thing though, numerous killers appear to have taken one glove with them and I don't get it.

Maybe it's because after they remove one they have to use their bare hand to remove the other and they are nervous of prints?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Julia's body isn't where she would have fallen initially, we don't know what the positions of her and the mackintosh were until she was discovered. She could have been moved onto it coincidentally during the act or who knows.

With her body over near to the door I find it almost impossible to imagine it ending up in that position accidentally.

She's not clutching the jacket, why would she be? She's bending or kneeling down doing something with the fireplace. I think her handing it to William could be ruled out unless forensics are wrong. I believe all were in agreement as to the body's position when struck. It is also bad as an idea from his end, bringing him his jacket she'd have to be facing him and then you'd expect her to see it coming and have reflexive movements that may cause defensive wounds.

With her skirt and the mackintosh being burned it’s more difficult to see them as being as separate occurrences. He could have made the first blow as she’d turned to leave the room. Or she might have bent down to pick something up or to tend to the fire.

I don't think there's any entanglement. There'd have to be a struggle. I doubt Julia would remain conscious for even a millisecond after that first hit, she's a frail old lady. I've been unexpectedly blindsided by makeshift belt buckle knuckledusters, she's definitely going lights out the second that bar or whatever hits her.

People can grip things at the moment of death (it occurred in the ripper case) so it can’t be impossible that Wallace struck as she handed over the mackintosh and she pulled it down with her. I don’t see any need for a struggle in that split second.

The blood on the sleeve is similar to the girl who shot her parents in the pink bathrobe. Same heavy staining up one side.

I also noticed in this case (Wallace) there's rumors of one single glove in Parry's car. In the OJ Simpson case, also for some reason there was one glove at the scene and he kept one. I have never understood that. It seems to be a thing though, numerous killers appear to have taken one glove with them and I don't get it.

Maybe it's because after they remove one they have to use their bare hand to remove the other and they are nervous of prints?

If I remember correctly it was Gannon who first mentioned the possibility that a dark object on the sideboard might have been a mitten? This would have been suggestive evidence and yet the police never mentioned it. This leads me to think that the dark object was something else. I’ve never felt convinced by Parkes.

It’s interesting to make suggestions on why Julia was in the parlour and how the attack took place. We can’t be anything like certain and the musical evening suggestion is as good as any. I just can’t see the mackintosh ending up where it did by accident.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was wondering about the Monday night trams and the risk Wallace would have taken of being seen getting on at the stop near to the call box. Could Wallace, after making the call, have walked down Breck Road and caught the tram at the end of Richmond Park? Then, by the time the Conductor got to him the tram was at or near the next stop. Wallace later felt confident enough to name the stop near to Belmont Road where he got on. Even if someone recalled him getting on they would have had him getting on at Richmond Park. A defence Barrister would have had plenty of doubt to work with. I don’t have my books with me but in one of Wallace’s statements I seem to recall him sounding uncertain about what route he’d taken that night (didn’t he say something like...I think I went....?) Was he waiting to see if anyone came forward?

[WallaceWackedHer]

It’s interesting to make suggestions on why Julia was in the parlour and how the attack took place. We can’t be anything like certain and the musical evening suggestion is as good as any. I just can’t see the mackintosh ending up where it did by accident.

Coincidentally not accidentally, I meant say the mackintosh ended up in the middle of the hearth rug before Julia ended up in her final resting position.

Julia would have been concussed on strike one I have no doubt, she'd be unconscious instantly. Forensics agree. The Ripper victims were stabbed to death as far as I recall. Stabbing doesn't put people out cold right away like blunt instruments, even if you slash someone's throat.. I've been hit in that way myself, knuckledustered on the right side of my head unexpectedly. I'm 28 and in pretty good shape. I hardly see a sickly old lady tanking a hit with an iron bar.

No way she was handing the jacket over it fits none of the facts and makes no sense as part of any plausible plan. She's facing the fireplace, all forensic experts are in agreement about that part. Looks like she was lighting it or turning it out (not sure how old time gas fireplaces like that were put out).