The Murder of Julia Wallace (1931) - Full DPP case files

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi Herlock - well, no rotten fruit and veg from me. An open and honest assessment with your views well explained. I particularly liked you distinguishing between fact and supposition, and not trying to ram the latter down our throats and make anyone out to be an idiot if he or she disagreed.

When I first started looking into this case a couple of years or so ago, I was inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to William Wallace and put his odd actions down to the fact that … the geeky, chess playing, insurance man was odd. However, I've since formed the view that his actions weren't just odd but downright suspicious. Your piece - and I've read the whole full length shooting match! - goes a very long way to supporting those suspicions and pointing towards Wallace being responsible for his wife's murder. As you are at pains to emphasise, that's insufficient to legally convict him (and the jury were wrong to do so) but that's not what we are about here.

From what we know of Wallace's character, his actions and inactions before and after the murder seem so unlikely if he were indeed innocent. Just a few examples - the normally meticulous Wallace not bothering to check or consult a map for where he was going for a potentially important meeting but to wing it; having set off, the usually shy and reserved Wallace trumpeting to so many where he was going and to whom he was going to see and then his refusal to accept the non-existence of MGE - I loved you likening it to him being thwarted in his attempt to discover the source of the Nile; and then all the performance with the keys and the bolt with his neighbours. Nope, together it's all too much for me to buy. I therefore side with you in believing he planned it.

Where though I found your piece less convincing was in the actual physical killing of Julia. Although you make the case for Wallace having sufficient time, it was still tight for him to do so. Furthermore, there had to be the risk of blood splatter on him (even if it didn't occur) which may have stopped him from personally wielding the weapon. That then leads to another issue - if he did kill her himself, what did he do with the weapon and why wasn't it found? To your credit, you don't duck this but acknowledge it and don't attempt an invented explanation.

This makes me wonder if Wallace was aided by an accomplice who actually killed Julia and perhaps made the phone call to the chess club which would of course explain why Wallace's voice wasn't recognised. [I gave more of my thinking about this on the main thread in January last year to your mate Antony as he requested although he p*ss*d me off by not having the grace to even acknowledge.] ADMITTEDLY (it's a large ''admittedly''), this then prompts the question - who could that person have been? I don't know and don't pretend to but don't see it as inconceivable. As I've said in earlier posts, we don't know everything about Wallace and anyone who says we do is a fool.

On one particular bit of detail, I'm unclear why you attach so much significance to the killer turning the lights off and that pointing to Wallace. If Wallace killed her himself, I would have thought he would have wanted to leave the lights on so as to make it seem that Julia was safely there by herself when he left. If someone else killed her, I could more readily envisage that person turning the lights off to aid his escape unseen.

Best regards,
OneRound

The other person would be Gordon Parry.

If Wallace killed Julia he didn't just push the boat out and make it look like it COULD be Gordon, it's a very multi-layered framing that leads people to the conclusion that he's essentially the only person apart from William who could have done it.

He didn't just make use of the chess schedule, he went further. He says Julia would only admit people personally known to her. Then further, he says only Gordon and Marsden know where the box is kept. It's a targeted strike on the box.

Nobody wanting to get away with a crime narrows a suspect pool especially to that degree, unless there are personal hopes for revenge, or they know they can do so safely because the person is indeed involved hence 100% assurance of no alibi.

The sole reason for the crime to be as it is, is if it's legitimate, OR it's been done in such a way as to purposefully frame Gordon.

[moste]

You said in Post 397 that there are 2 persons who said she's dirty.. not me.... stop the ACID

I think I've rebutted your evidence"... you wanna have a go at mine?

You only tackled half of my last post e.g. what's your response to -

They had a cleaner come in once a week...yet Julia was not doing anything.. and you're basing your judgements on black and white photo's...lol...the Nurse said she was “Peculiar in her manner and dirty..."
And if the cleaner came in once a week why didn't she come on the 14th...was she asked not to?

The evidence that the Wallaces were not clean people is irrefutable by virtue of the state of the toilet pan! 'Vim' was invented in 1908 by 'port sunlight' Liverpool.

No excuses Julia, 'you were dirty love'!

I cant get my head around the importance of us knowing 'what was the murder weapon', I can see the importance for the cops ,they needed fingerprints and such (good

look with that)'For some reason Wallace needed it to be a mystery, Also there is more than one way to look at the 'lights turned on','lights turned off',
thing, so I would say "forget that "

The issue of the members chart for chess games was fully understood by the members, so not an issue really.What else was there? Oh yes, the cupboard door being

smashed off, its back to the drawing board there. I had originally said a small person climbed up and his weight broke off the hinges, however this wont work , I see that

the bottom of the cupboard provides a ledge, so the need to climb onto the door , is obviated. Incidently ,The cash box is in full view?why do people go on about

"how did the burglar know where it was? Personally I dont even place a lot of importance on the front door bolt thing, Wallace's position I feel was, 'they wont be able to

convict me because they will not be able to prove anything' ,in the final analysis , he was right,.However, we ,and many before us have had the luxury of sifting through every tiny piece of detail concerning the case,without any time resriction etc. And I for one have decided he was guilty. however I take my hat off to the stoic old phuquer.

[moste]

I’ve also played darts for 30 years (but not anymore) And pool too. I also played in a club snooker league for three years. It would be a bit strange if the x’s were all no shows and every player had one each. Did they take turns to not show up? There are 7 players in the league so in games that require 2 people it’s obvious that every week one player won’t have a game. Hence the x.

Took turns at not showing up, thats funny Herlock !

But that chart being there for all to see is a red herring waiting to be adopted,and it looks like Wallace milked it.

[Ven]

An intriguing idea from Antony about the disposal of the weapon. Because the iron bar and the poker were missing the police believed that one of these was the murder weapon and therefore this is what they searched for without success. But what if neither of these were actually the weapon? What if, before the murder, William had disposed of them both knowing that their absence would have been noticed by Sarah Draper (and with William himself to point this out of course) Might this have allowed William to have used something unknown and unsuspected object which could have remained inside the house?

The obvious objection of course is the fact that the object would have been contaminated with blood and brain matter but could there have been a way around this? I have one suggestion.

Could Wallace have cleaned the object in the toilet bowl using paper? A flush or two and the evidence was gone? Might this also explain the blood spot on the toilet rim?

I believe they experts said that the blood on the bowl was congealed already and must have been "dropped" there later. If William was washing the weapon I think he would have noticed a red spot on a white bowl

We don’t have an inventory of objects in the house after all and William, in one of his John Bull articles, not only said that the killer might have used the mackintosh as a shield but he also said that:

"He followed my wife into the sitting-room, and as she bent down and lit the gas-fire he struck her, possibly with a spanner." John Bull, 21.05.32

Did William have a spanner somewhere? In his laboratory for example. Of course it didn’t have to have been a spanner. Alternatively if the murder weapon wasn’t the poker or the bar, but this is what the police were looking for, might not William simply have disposed of it on his route (after cleaning it) and this is why the police never found it.....because they were looking for something else?

Wasn't it said in court that it was an iron bar. A spanner or hammer would leave very different wounds.

Regardless, a weapon was used and not found, the iron bar is missing, and yes , he could have disposed of it anywhere.

[Ven]

[QUOTE=WallaceWackedHer;n731704]

I don't know, I mean it took pages upon pages for people to finally accept the milk boy came after 18:30. At least that's been cleared up. But there's probably more.
I never had a problem with later than 6.30. In my paper I show how he only need a few minutes to do the deed and get out.
I'm sure it will take at least 100 pages to convince people William may have had help...

I also do see a discovery of the age and deception as a possible addition to a motive but not just straight reason to kill lol.
Maybe you're the type to steal millions from poor defenceless old people or think it makes perfect sense to kill someone for being old.
This sentence bothers me. Firstly how do you steal millions from poor people and however did I give you that impression. Secondly, you're missing my point if you think I said it was because she was simply old. This is why I have asked whether you are married (and I'm guessing you're not). William was lied to from the minute he met his wife, the person he was going to spend the rest of his life with, having kids, giving up his real dreams...
But I think there would be additional factors.

[WallaceWackedHer]

[QUOTE=Ven;n731785]

I don't know, I mean it took pages upon pages for people to finally accept the milk boy came after 18:30. At least that's been cleared up. But there's probably more.
I never had a problem with later than 6.30. In my paper I show how he only need a few minutes to do the deed and get out.
I'm sure it will take at least 100 pages to convince people William may have had help...

I also do see a discovery of the age and deception as a possible addition to a motive but not just straight reason to kill lol.
Maybe you're the type to steal millions from poor defenceless old people or think it makes perfect sense to kill someone for being old.
This sentence bothers me. Firstly how do you steal millions from poor people and however did I give you that impression. Secondly, you're missing my point if you think I said it was because she was simply old. This is why I have asked whether you are married (and I'm guessing you're not). William was lied to from the minute he met his wife, the person he was going to spend the rest of his life with, having kids, giving up his real dreams...
But I think there would be additional factors.

I mean it seems like some vendetta against the elderly that some people have lmao. Like "ohhh she's older than he thought, no wonder he would cave her head in!"

There's a lot of assumption about the fact he had even recently found this out (and that he didn't already know), that it would bother him enough to KILL her, that he didn't tell any of his pals or coworkers "omfg guys my wife lied to me about her age!" before it occurred to him to bump her off... Assumption that he even wanted children...

You know, kill her as opposed to the other things he may have done. It seems pretty damn extreme.

What dream did he give up? Julia's dream is the one that was snatched from her. She loved Harrogate, and this guy shipped her off to a concrete jungle.

Kidney disease ruined William's dream, not Julia.

[Ven]

[QUOTE=WallaceWackedHer;n731795]

I mean it seems like some vendetta against the elderly that some people have lmao. Like "ohhh she's older than he thought, no wonder he would cave her head in!"
Again, you missed my point about the age issue. So you are not married... or been in love I think.
There's a lot of assumption about the fact he had even recently found this out (and that he didn't already know), that it would bother him enough to KILL her, that he didn't tell any of his pals or coworkers "omfg guys my wife lied to me about her age!" before it occurred to him to bump her off... Assumption that he even wanted children...
Again, you missed my point about the age issue. So you are not married... or been in love I think.
You know, kill her as opposed to the other things he may have done. It seems pretty damn extreme.
What other things he might have done?
What dream did he give up? Julia's dream is the one that was snatched from her. She loved Harrogate, and this guy shipped her off to a concrete jungle.

Kidney disease ruined William's dream, not Julia.

To stay in Harrogate and work in politics... whatever... he had to move to Liverpool and take up a job, to raise a family, on a job his Dad found for him

[WallaceWackedHer]

[QUOTE=Ven;n731797]

To stay in Harrogate and work in politics... whatever... he had to move to Liverpool and take up a job, to raise a family, on a job his Dad found for him

He didn't want to stay in Harrogate, he lost his post at the political place and moved to Liverpool for the Prudential. His dad was dead by now I think. He would have gone with or without Julia.

He moved into Julia's swanky stately Harrogate home before this move.

His dream was to work overseas like his brother but he couldn't because of the kidney disease. He never mentioned anything about raising a family or a desire to. Not in diaries or anything.

[OneRound]

I’m sorry but you’re saying that just because you can’t understand it no one would. It’s a very general way that these kind of league tables are done. I don’t claim to be a genius but I understood it straight away. It’s very simple. The number in the box tells you who that person is due to play. Average people use them all the time in pub darts, dominoes and crib leagues. W, L and D are win, lose and draw. No letter means the game wasn’t played.

As the game against Chandler wasn’t filled in it’s possible that the results were handed to Beattie who hadn’t filled them in yet or that Wallace was meant to fill it in but had forgotten. But the point is that the table is easy to understand and a person looking at it would see that Wallace hadn’t played 3 out of his last four games. Obviously he wouldn’t be thinking “well he might have played all of these games but not filled the board in going back a whole month.” He’d very naturally have assumed that Wallace had failed to play 3 games. To an average pub or club visiting man this table would have posed no problems.

I'm fully with Herlock on this. I wouldn't say that I'm more than an average pub goer and games player but, in line with Herlock's explanation* above and earlier, the table is clear and straightforward to me.

Best regards,
OneRound

EDIT and PS: * Just to emphasise - I didn't need Herlock's explanation to understand the table although it's apparent that's not the case for all.

[Ven]

I agree. I had no problem interpreting it.

[Ven]

[QUOTE=WallaceWackedHer;n731799]

He didn't want to stay in Harrogate, WHY, BASED ON WHAT he lost his post at the political place and moved to Liverpool for the Prudential. His dad was dead by now I think. NO, HIS DAD GOT HIM THE JOB WITH THE PRU He would have gone with or without Julia. NO, THEY MET IN 1910

He moved into Julia's swanky stately Harrogate home before this move. YES, WHEN THEY MARRIED WITH HIS FATHER

His dream was to work overseas like his brother but he couldn't because of the kidney disease. He never mentioned anything about raising a family or a desire to. Not in diaries or anything.

WHEN DO HIS DIARIES DATE BACK TO? MOST (YES, GENERALISING) GUYS MARRY TO HAVE A LONG LIFE WITH A LOVING PARTNER AND KIDS... and so you're not married!

[WallaceWackedHer]

[QUOTE=Ven;n731804]

WHEN DO HIS DIARIES DATE BACK TO? MOST (YES, GENERALISING) GUYS MARRY TO HAVE A LONG LIFE WITH A LOVING PARTNER AND KIDS... and so you're not married!

Right.............

Anyway, so they go back to some time at least in the 20s because that's when the "newspaper argument" he had with her happened. I can check Wilkes' book for this.

He went to Liverpool for work, it has nothing to do with Julia at all. She's the one who loved Harrogate so much, since she loved the countryside and painting etc. William lost the political position, he took a new job...

[WallaceWackedHer]

I agree. I had no problem interpreting it.

You can interpret it because you've been told how to.

I'm inclined to believe anyone saying they knew what it meant before being told are lying. The scores for the 19th show he didn't attend. It's heiroglyphic tier.

Whatever the case, it's not "easy" for anyone to see when he didn't go. Total nonsense. I won't allow it. I won't.

I can also interpret it now. Not before HS explained it, nor could my friend Josh who's into this case, nor can my dad who plays darts for a regional team (and is damn good at it btw)... I just sent him the pic and asked if he can tell what days people didn't turn up. He said maybe the Xs are no shows. Which is what any layman would be likely to assume.

[OneRound]

The other person would be Gordon Parry.

If Wallace killed Julia he didn't just push the boat out and make it look like it COULD be Gordon, it's a very multi-layered framing that leads people to the conclusion that he's essentially the only person apart from William who could have done it.

He didn't just make use of the chess schedule, he went further. He says Julia would only admit people personally known to her. Then further, he says only Gordon and Marsden know where the box is kept. It's a targeted strike on the box.

Nobody wanting to get away with a crime narrows a suspect pool especially to that degree, unless there are personal hopes for revenge, or they know they can do so safely because the person is indeed involved hence 100% assurance of no alibi.

The sole reason for the crime to be as it is, is if it's legitimate, OR it's been done in such a way as to purposefully frame Gordon.

IF (even though I give it serious consideration, it's still a large ''if'') Wallace had an accomplice, I doubt it was Parry as he appears to have a decent alibi for the night of the killing. Furthermore, I doubt that either Wallace or Parry would have trusted the other to keep schtum.

I feel you are saying Parry because he's a known and dodgy character to have had some involvement with Wallace. However, there's no substantive evidence against Parry; particularly, as I'm inclined to dismiss Parkes' story as the ramblings of a sick old man, possibly suffering from dementia.

As posted previously, we don't know of everyone with whom Wallace had some involvement and to what extent. Consequently, it seems rash and artificial to narrow the field as to who might have been a possible accomplice.

Best regards,
OneRound

[WallaceWackedHer]

IF (even though I give it serious consideration, it's still a large ''if'') Wallace had an accomplice, I doubt it was Parry as he appears to have a decent alibi for the night of the killing. Furthermore, I doubt that either Wallace or Parry would have trusted the other to keep schtum.

I feel you are saying Parry because he's a known and dodgy character to have had some involvement with Wallace. However, there's no substantive evidence against Parry; particularly, as I'm inclined to dismiss Parkes' story as the ramblings of a sick old man, possibly suffering from dementia.

As posted previously, we don't know of everyone with whom Wallace had some involvement and to what extent. Consequently, it seems rash and artificial to narrow the field as to who might have been a possible accomplice.

Best regards,
OneRound

No I'm saying Gordon for very, very good reason.

Wallace has employed a multi-layered frame job against Gordon. He hasn't just said "oh yeah uh I guess Gordon knew I go to that chess club", he's also said ONLY Gordon and like, two other people know where the cash box is kept, and he's one of the few people Julia would let in.

He hasn't just taken a bunch of jewelry (and let's be honest he could have lied about stuff like non-existent bracelets even being stolen - who could prove him a liar?).

It's made to look like a targeted strike on the insurance box. HE has limited the pool of potential culprits to about 3 people.

That's a level of framing you employ only when you KNOW you can implicate the person. And the only way you can KNOW that is if they are involved and you can be sure they won't have an alibi.

Which Gordon didn't, hence falsified.

It's possible Wallace killed her and Parry had to get rid of the stuff, as per Parkes.

OR the alternative is he's innocent and it looks like Gordon is involved because he is. No framing.