Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

[Herlock Sholmes]

3. New testimony: A woman came forward saying that at the time of the murder a woman approached her in Menlove Gardens West, asking for directions to Menlove Gardens East around 15.00 (before reading of the crime in the Echo at just after 4 PM that day). Being very familiar with the area, the witness told this other woman that there was definitely no such road. However the woman insisted that there was and claimed that she had actually been there herself... The witness claims that during the trial she was able to connect this woman to Amy Wallace of Ullet Road (Amy of course, being one of the only people who knew with certainty that William was going on the trip that night).

This is interesting although it’s not corroborated. A while ago on the other thread I came up with a scenario with Wallace having a female accomplice. I’m not proposing it but it’s certainly tempting to suggest William having help and with a female accomplice who might have dressed as Julia thus allowing extra time for the murder. An accomplice might also have gotten rid of the murder weapon and perhaps taken away any bloodstained clothing?

Ive been trying to come up with a reason why Amy might have visited Menlove Gardens? Might Wallace have elected to dump the weapon himself but then started to panic that it might have been discovered so he dispatches Amy to retrieve it and dump it elsewhere? If Amy was the sole murderer would she be dumping the weapon where it would have been found implicating William? Against that idea of course is the unlikeliness of Amy drawing attention to herself by talking to passers by?

It’s difficult to come up with a motive for Amy. I think you’ve suggested jealousy? It’s harder to see a reason for an Amy/William partnership though as they went their separate ways after the trial.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here is the conclusion of Morland. I do not actually understand what he's saying, see if you get it:



It sounds like he's saying the mackintosh was part of the staging? But William pointed it out twice as his own without hesitation? I really have no clue WTF he's saying here, but his mackintosh idea is the crux of his book. The chapter is even entitled "the man behind the mackintosh" and focuses on the mackintosh as the key theme as he's 100% certain he has the answer.

From post #23


Moreland is about as clear as mud on this. On one hand he’s saying that Julia had been told about Qualtrough’s imminent visit (hence the use of the parlour) then, apparently with only her and William in the room, he’s saying that she would be in the position that you would expect with a newcomer in the room?

I understand how he suspects that Wallace made use of the mackintosh though as it’s something I’ve proposed myself. It’s also perhaps worth mentioning again that Wallace himself suggested the idea of the mackintosh being used as a shield in the John Bull articles. Was this a bit of gloating? Either way I’m yet to hear a convincing explanation for the presence of the mackintosh. It wasn’t in a position where you would have remotely expected it to have fallen naturally. Surely it had to have been put there, bunched up intentionally and the only person with any possible reason for this was Wallace himself. It’s been suggested that it might have been used to reduce noise by deadening the blows but this would only make sense if it was used like a cushion which would mean that it would have been found beneath her head and not her body.

[Harry D]

Take almost any high-profile case and you will find all kinds of intriguing tidbits and red herrings.

There is no need for 4D chess when there is a parsimonious key to this mystery. Wallace battered his old lady.

[WallaceWackedHer]

For your interest here is the response from the DPP:

Dear Mr Jones,

We have an entry on paper for W H WALLACE ref DPP2/2 file ref 116 marked OPEN. This would indicate that the papers were transferred to the National Archives.

From research William Herbert WALLACE was convicted for murder (Julia WALLACE) and sentenced to death (acquitted on appeal). There are Home Office files open at the National Archives ref HO 144/17938,

HO 144/17939 and listed is the DPP 2/2 reference former file reference 116.

You may also wish to make enquiries with the court service to see if they hold any records.

Kind regards,

J Altham

Head of Records Management Unit/DRO

[WallaceWackedHer]

I seem to recall Antony saying that he’d looked whilst researching his book but found no evidence of Heaton ever mentioning a fault. I think he might have mentioned a broken bulb but I’m not certain.

Antony claims this, sure, but the police files are pruned quite significantly whereas Yseult Bridges was a contemporary author on the case. I know the files Antony saw are pruned because Merseyside police told me this themselves, and I am not aware of any other source he checked.

I will see the files myself and make sense of it all... I have been granted access to the DPP files as well, which is what Murphy used.

I also happen to know Antony was originally planning to write on Wallace's guilt, but went with Rod's theory solely because the publisher said the Wallace guilt case was overdone (although they did not seem to know this theory is identical to the theory of Hussey, and at least one other author who proposed it, along with Wallace's own defence lawyer who brought it up in court). So I am not convinced he believes a lot of the things he says, and I also think he may potentially be withholding certain information which was in the files because of this.

I know he mocks my enthusiasm for my case but it's a Rubik's cube I absolutely must solve. Even if only to wittle it all down to a subset of theories which are all entirely plausible and weed out the rest.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH - catching up with your postings and intrigued by the Caird speculation. You've done an excellent job of reviewing this case and I think you have come up with a really interesting scenario. I'm not sure you have nailed the motive yet, and it may not be possible to do so, but you've opened up a plausible alternative solution.

Well there are only two motives here, theft or murder. Going deeper than that or determining whether the intruder even in a burglary scenario planned to murder Julia, I'm not sure.

I know there are some anecdotal reports of homosexuality on Wallaces part, and weird witness reports of Amy Wallace.

---

I know James Caird could potentially have a financial motive to steal, because he and Wallace were joint founders of the chess club and may have some money tied up into it that we aren't aware of. It's not necessary to prove but there is that... I also know James Caird very likely knew Parry by sight (and had at least 2 mutual acquaintances with him), was not due at the club that night, prompted/followed Beattie and loitered as the message was delivered, knew the Wallace home VERY well, had an odd line of questioning with Wallace on the way home (ending with him saying "so I take it you've made up your mind to definitely go then?" and pressing Wallace to describe which tram route he was going to take), was around the Wallace home in the window of time the murder was commited (19.45 by his own claim), lived close enough to plausibly escape unseen, would be admitted by Julia if he called, and lived at a position from which he could watch Wallace leave for the tram from his window or just outside his house.

A completely viable suspect indeed.

---

If Wallace himself killed Julia, I am proposing he got Julia to set up for a musical evening, went to the armchair where you see his violin case, grabbed a blunt instrument (or already had one in his hand), and hit her with it. This may have been wrapped to avoid blood staining. The mackintosh which was sprayed was then thrown onto the fire and abandoned, with the belief that it would be incinerated on return. Instead it had slipped off and partially burned Julia's skirt before the flames petered out, and Wallace shoved it under her shoulder on his return.

I also propose you consider the possibility that the milk boy Alan Close was not mistaken about seeing Julia, but actually LIED about seeing her to impress his young friends. We know Alan left the milk on the Wallace doorstep and then went to the Johnstons without seeing Julia take open the door or take the jugs in. He claimed to see Julia when he had returned to the doorstep to pick up the empty jugs. This is a statement he made after Wallace was already a suspect and he had not told his parents etc... He was discussing it with friends, and was reluctant to go to the police with the information while bragging and singing he's the missing link.

---

I have put in a request to see the files and have been given permission. Not only the Liverpool police station files but also the national archive records which is what James Murphy used when writing his books (whenever he references DPP - I contacted them and got a referral)...

After I see all these files, things will become much clearer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
. Important: Claims that an engineer, Leslie Heaton, inspected the phone box and "he had found a fault in the mechanism which he had corrected."

I seem to recall Antony saying that he’d looked whilst researching his book but found no evidence of Heaton ever mentioning a fault. I think he might have mentioned a broken bulb but I’m not certain.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Yseult states the 19th of January was the first contest match Wallace was down to play. But she also makes a point of the fact Wallace had not attended meetings for the past fortnight and Beattie was uncertain that he would turn up and thus had already found a replacement for him. So I think she might mean that it WOULD be the first one IF he turned up? (Would like corroboration).

According to the board Wallace had already played one match on November 10th and lost to E. Lampitt. He was overdue to play McCarthy which would have been his second match.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The letter is dated 24th May 1959, and the address on the top left reads (I assume this is Yseult's address): 54 THE MINT, 30 Mermaid Street, Rye, Sussex.

I would think so. She died in Rye in 1971.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It has an "Ex Libris" sticker to Jonathan Goodman, 43 Ealing Village, I wonder if it's the same Goodman who authored the Wallace book? It'd be pretty cool if I am holding his personal copy of the book.

its his address.


https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/culture-magazines/goodman-jonathan

[etenguy]

I'm just going to see the files tbh. I've seen a LOT of new information in all these books I didn't bother to document here as the thread is dead. But I think that would be the best thing to do.

Hi WWH - catching up with your postings and intrigued by the Caird speculation. You've done an excellent job of reviewing this case and I think you have come up with a really interesting scenario. I'm not sure you have nailed the motive yet, and it may not be possible to do so, but you've opened up a plausible alternative solution.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi WWH,

Apologies for abandoning the thread lately. Ripper related posting and life in general got in the way. You’ve done an enormous amount of research over the past few weeks/months and I agree with Al that you deserve a huge amount of credit. Over the next few days I’ll be reading through the whole thread to try and catch up and comment. I certainly wouldn’t want any Wallace discussion to die a death. It’s a pity AS isn’t still posting.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Give yourself some credit WWH, that's one hell of a well written, informative thread. You know your stuff.

Well thanks, I think general interest in the case has waned though and I've done so much reading yet the OBVIOUS step I gotta take is to just see the dang files.

I honestly feel that some authors are hiding information. Same in the papers there's officers, lawyers etc. claiming to know "secrets" but unwilling to share them.

It makes me think there's a gag order on something in the files. Like maybe a witness statement?

I have permission to access files in several locations. So... I gotta do that and then I think I'll know. For example only ONE book contains a single statement from Caird, none have full statements from all neighbors. There's a lot missing. Stuff that could be crucial... Antony casually mentioned McCartney asked Wallace for his address but didn't notice the significance in that.

So I feel there's gotta be other stuff in there that's important but being missed.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Give yourself some credit WWH, that's one hell of a well written, informative thread. You know your stuff.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Nobody cares about this thread or case anymore so I'll just give my recommendations for publications:

Brophy and Rowland were my favorite. It's incidental they favor Wallace's innocence.

Brophy is the only one sharp enough to point out the accent of the caller (so if it was Wallace he faked his voice to the operators as WELL as Beattie). Rowland's book is very comprehensive and worth a read because it's rare and therefore has information you might not have heard before.

---

End of the day... Telephone caller = Gordon Parry unless he provided a different proven alibi for the phone box which has never been seen. Telephone caller unlikely to be Wallace.

Killer possibly Wallace who killed Julia wearing his raincoat in the same way that girl killed her parents in a pink bathrobe and shower cap with a shotgun (it's a true case on an episode of Deadly Women)... Then chucked the raincoat onto the fireplace expecting it to be incinerated by the time he returned. To his horror this did not happen so on his solo entry into the home he repositioned it.

Best evidence of a distraction robbery is the coins on the floor indicating a person fumbled taking down the cash box causing it to fall and smash breaking the hinge, spilling coins.

Best evidence of an interrupted burglary after murder would be Wallace's evidence given that he felt someone was still inside the house when he got back.

Best evidence of a planned murder is the forensic evidence of the use of the raincoat. In the pink bathrobe murder the staining was almost identical with one sleeve being soaked with blood.

---

Parry potentipotentially responsible for disposal if Parkes is honest.

---

Some other evidence implicates Amy Wallace.

Mention of the dog whip being missing is VERY strange. I cannot think of any possible reason why Wallace would own a dog whip without a dog for any reason other than bondage type ****. Julia had no markings on her body that would suggest such practice.

He did not mention any other items which had apparently been missing for over a year.

That in combo with the evidence from a member of parliament (Colin Wilson mentions it, it's not his own theory) that Amy was into bondage and whipped people in Malay for sexual gratification is a weird possible connection.

Two outlier witnesses are ADAMANT they saw Amy Wallace around the murder time. One states he saw Amy at Scotland Road asking for directions to the ferry landing stage (interesting that Brophy suggests the weapon may have been dropped off the side of a ferry despite not knowing that info, just a guess from him). Another that the day after Amy was asking for Menlove Gardens East insisting it did exist and she had been there.

Brophy has studied maps of the time and the writing on the map is confusing and misleading. I believe menlove west and south are marked Menlove Gardens W and Menlove Gardens S. North is just marked Menlove Gardens, and the E in Liverpool on the map unfortunately aligns right by the Menlove Gardens without the directional marking. Something like that.

---

Likely scenarios without any real issue:

1) Wallace wanted to be with Amy and reluctantly killed Julia after getting Gordon to place a call. The two men passed at the fork in the junction of Breck Road with Parry going right to the box and Wallace left to the tram.

In the kill night, look at the first strike and position of the body. It is consistent with Wallace pretending to get out his violin on the armchair while actually grabbing a heavy instrument to hit her with. Places him in the correct weird position. I can explain this.

The mackintosh was immediately thrown onto the Sunbeam fireplace and caught light and took with it part of Julia's skirt. Unexpectedly it did not burn entirely, Wallace was not waiting for it he just rushed out assuming it'd be ashes when he returned. Apparently there was no burning scent when Wallace/Johnstons entered so the mack was likely burnt a fair bit earlier. Other stuff could have successfully burned as well.

2) Parry knew Caird (2 mutual aquaintances plus attending the same cafè on the same night for an extended period, being Thursdays), and planned this with him. Parry placed the call. Caird was there to ensure delivery of the message. The criminals in this case likely escaped to Caird's home, being exposed to the public for perhaps 20 seconds at most.

Caird didn't have a match scheduled. He asked Wallace for a game and when refused did not set up another right away (not a big deal), instead went to Beattie's table then followed Beattie to Wallace's table and stood there listening as the message was delivered (really).

Caird's questioning of Wallace on the way back was odd.

3) Parry passed Wallace on his way to Lily's, saw Wallace at the tram stop as he had done by chance many times, stopped at the booth to make a funny joke, and someone who caught wind of this had a seed planted in their mind to exploit this opportunity. E.g. a chess club member, because everyone at that club knew all relevant information about the trip even Wallace's street (if not house number) since McCartney asked for his address.

---

I'm just going to see the files tbh. I've seen a LOT of new information in all these books I didn't bother to document here as the thread is dead. But I think that would be the best thing to do.