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

[WallaceWackedHer]

I’ve no need to falsify reality nor have I ever attempted to.

Ive checked online and have found various people, one of whom was a Professor who, based on average walking time, say that 500 yards could have been done in 5 or 6 minutes. One person said 4. You’ve stated above that he’s calling at multiple houses but...

• He collected milk which was waiting for him on the counter. So he walks in, picks it up and walks out. 10 seconds.
• He delivered milk in Letchworth Street. Easily plausible that this could have been 30 seconds or a minute.
• He leaves milk in a garden in Richmond Park. 10 seconds.

These 3 acts might easily have been a minute combined. We don’t know so we can’t eliminate the possibility. Maybe 2.

Again, we cannot assume a walking speed for Close. He might have been a fast walker. As I said earlier it would hardly have been surprising for a kid to have wanted to have finished his rounds as soon as possible so that he could go out. And let’s not forget...he was late which might have encouraged him to have walked quicker.

I see nothing wrong with a basic walking time of 5 mins but let’s not forget that a second reconstruction was timed at 6 mins.

Even if we stretch it and give him 7 minutes this still gets him to number 29 at 6.32.

Im certainly not accusing you of falsifying WWH but I don’t know of another bunch of officers. The ones in the full trial transcript that I mentioned don’t mention this. If they had dashed to get one tram before it pulled away it can’t be construed that they sprinted the whole journey. If they were checking possible journey times they couldn’t assume that the person originally making that journey wouldn’t have also have sped up if they were in the same situation.

It's after 6.30, the church bells timestamp that.

Even if those events take the time you say they would, it's more than 5 minutes, which is the forced time the police gave for Alan's rounds. It's dishonest to try to press a 5 minute time because it's not true. 5 minutes is the time for somebody not carrying a crate of milk jugs to walk that while actively hurrying and not stopping for anything.

I'm not really wanting to debate established facts because it's pointless. It's more reasonable to discuss evidence that isn't concrete and proven, otherwise it's like debating a flat-earther. If you falsely think it's 5 minutes (though even if you were biased to wish for Wallace's guilt, it doesn't even need to be as short as 5 minutes) then there's no convincing someone that dead set, you might as well continue to think it's the case... It doesn't even really have that much of a bearing since the entire case of the prosecution is that he didn't get any blood on him because of the raincoat so if you want to think it then okay.

The police said they sprinted to catch a tram. It wasn't the entire distance, just the final leg. I've read it, I thought it might be in Bailey's statement but I haven't been able to find it again, but certainly a point was made of this... It was in response to the allegation of jumping on moving trams. I feel sure it's in one of the pages I uploaded, maybe the short notes or appeal I don't know. That said Roland Oliver used the surveyor's distance to give a walking speed for at least one of the tests and it showed something like 7 mph. That I know is the appeal trial rather than the initial trial text... Plus the fact in numerous of these tests the officers didn't even take the route Wallace claims he took and those need to have an asterisk beside them.

The second reconstruction was 5 minutes. The first was 6.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The police photo , I believe I have in the ‘Wilkes’ book shows the cupboard door directly below the shelf with the cash box on it. If this is correct I can’t think of another reason why the hinge would be ripped off , other than being stepped on , in an attempt to reach the 7’ shelf, can you?

To be honest I’ve always thought that the damaged cupboard was near to the door. I thought that I had a photograph pointing to it but I don’t. I’m still of that opinion though but I could easily be mistaken. The issue with the cupboard beneath the bookshelf is that it’s quite high and doesn’t appear to stick out much. It looks a bit of a precarious way of reaching the shelf especially when there was a chair there which could easily have been used. I can’t really imagine anyone clambering onto the cupboard rather than the easy option of the chair.

I couldn’t help being reminded of this classic piece of Monty Python silliness.

https://youtu.be/e8eHILrlkoM

I could suggest a couple of reasons for the damaged cupboard. a) an attempt to make it look more like a robbery, or b) making it look like the killer didn’t know the exact location of the cash box. A locked cupboard might seem a likely place to hide a large sum of money.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Does anyone know whether the Anfield burglaries stopped, after January 20th?

I do, and yes they did. That was the end of the Anfield housebreakings.

Of course, would you really want to be caught robbing another home in the same area where there was a high profile murder case you could potentially then be suspected of?

[WallaceWackedHer]

The police photo , I believe I have in the ‘Wilkes’ book shows the cupboard door directly below the shelf with the cash box on it. If this is correct I can’t think of another reason why the hinge would be ripped off , other than being stepped on , in an attempt to reach the 7’ shelf, can you?

I was just reading the Wilkes' book. The testimony in there is very interesting, since it's written after the radio program was broadcast and therefore contains other interviews.

I posted above what Walsh said, that nobody actually believed Alan Close saw Mrs Wallace alive (he and Hemmerde subscribe fully to the crossdressing William theory, adamantly). There's one of the telephone operators, who discusses the phone call and how the voice was very ordinary and very calm, and that the caller pressed the wrong button. She does not suggest she thinks it was Wallace's voice, and says she heard Wallace in court and couldn't have sworn it was the same voice.

Bailey said that when he retired he would tell Goodman something very interesting about the case. His son Harry Bailey said his dad told him Parry was the prime suspect. I also saw it in the paper once, after Bailey's death, that Bailey apparently had been told by Wallace "okay you've arrested me Bailey, now you have to prove I did it."

There's a reiteration in here about one of the detectives being wasted drunk. He went to the upstairs bathroom and flushed the toilet. Subsequently on the flushing handle the only fingerprints found would be his and Wallace's. Essentially he may well have flushed evidence. This was from one of his colleagues so not an anti-police type person.

Lily Lloyd seems to strongly imply she knows exactly what happened, but VERY frustratingly, like every single person - including authors - who claim to know """secrets""" about the case, refuse to tell anyone. She said rather cryptically if she knows the truth about what happened that night it will go to the grave with her. It's truly shocking behaviour from all these individuals... I see old posts by this "Mark R" guy saying he has "secrets" and it will be in his book. A book that was apparently going to be released about a decade ago... I get really annoyed by that type of thing.

---

Just thought I should put all that out there... But anyway about the cupboard door, I have the Wilkes book which contains photos etc., it's the same photo as can be found online of the living kitchen (though I have the paperback, not sure if the hardback has different photos). If you could perhaps circle where the cupboard is on the crime scene photo I'd very much appreciate that.

If the cupboard is indeed in a position as to where it would be likely to be stepped on or used as a hand-hold, then that is what I would call rather good evidence a shorter man had rifled that box.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If a minute or two doesn't matter then please admit the truth. 5 minutes is faster than the average walking speed even if he's ONLY walking.

Are you suggesting there will be absolutely no difference in the time it takes when he's calling at multiple houses etc? Because that has to be the suggestion - in COMBINATION with him speed walking - to arrive at 5 minutes. It's nonsense, it's not something that can be debated because it's mathematically proven to be nonsense.

If we're gonna start going extremes (6.30 is an extreme, completely bogus time), why then ignore the evidence of Elsie Wright who heard the 6.30 church bells before she saw Alan Close who had not yet delivered to the Wallace home? 6.30 is very literally picking and choosing evidence to fit whatever you want it to fit, and ignoring everything else. It's no different than Rod.

I don't even see the reason to falsify the reality, do you really need that extra 5 minutes to believe in William's guilt? If it was 5 minutes later you think he's innocent?

I’ve no need to falsify reality nor have I ever attempted to.

Ive checked online and have found various people, one of whom was a Professor who, based on average walking time, say that 500 yards could have been done in 5 or 6 minutes. One person said 4. You’ve stated above that he’s calling at multiple houses but...

• He collected milk which was waiting for him on the counter. So he walks in, picks it up and walks out. 10 seconds.
• He delivered milk in Letchworth Street. Easily plausible that this could have been 30 seconds or a minute.
• He leaves milk in a garden in Richmond Park. 10 seconds.

These 3 acts might easily have been a minute combined. We don’t know so we can’t eliminate the possibility. Maybe 2.

Again, we cannot assume a walking speed for Close. He might have been a fast walker. As I said earlier it would hardly have been surprising for a kid to have wanted to have finished his rounds as soon as possible so that he could go out. And let’s not forget...he was late which might have encouraged him to have walked quicker.

I see nothing wrong with a basic walking time of 5 mins but let’s not forget that a second reconstruction was timed at 6 mins.

Even if we stretch it and give him 7 minutes this still gets him to number 29 at 6.32.

And one of the officers, not the first bunch, literally used the term sprinted, that exact word. It was when he was asked if they got onto a moving tram car. He said though they indeed sprinted to get it, it had stopped and wasn't moving when they boarded.

That sounds like a fair test...

Im certainly not accusing you of falsifying WWH but I don’t know of another bunch of officers. The ones in the full trial transcript that I mentioned don’t mention this. If they had dashed to get one tram before it pulled away it can’t be construed that they sprinted the whole journey. If they were checking possible journey times they couldn’t assume that the person originally making that journey wouldn’t have also have sped up if they were in the same situation.

[moste]

Does anyone know whether the Anfield burglaries stopped, after January 20th?

[moste]

The police photo , I believe I have in the ‘Wilkes’ book shows the cupboard door directly below the shelf with the cash box on it. If this is correct I can’t think of another reason why the hinge would be ripped off , other than being stepped on , in an attempt to reach the 7’ shelf, can you?

If the killer was say, less than 5’ 9” . It was almost certainly the Anfield burglar that done it. If the killer was Wallace, then he cleverly staged it.

[moste]

Hi Moste,

I’ve just tried this ‘reaching’ experiment myself. I’m 6’2”. (Actually I’d always thought that Wallace was 6’4” but I haven’t checked or whether we know his exact height.) The shelves in our kitchen are pretty much 7’ high but we have one that’s nearer 7’8.”

I can reach a box from the 7’ one without a problem. And I know this isn’t completely accurate but I tried taking around 3” off my height by bending my knees (witnessed by someone else to check) and I could still, with a little difficulty, reach the box. This would have made me around 5’9.” We also have to take into consideration that someone of 5’9” might simply have stood on tiptoes. On tiptoes I can just about reach from the 7’8” shelf by the way.

Ive always believed that the cupboard with the door broken off was near to the hallway door and nowhere near the bookshelves. I can’t recall where I got this though.

The police photo , I believe I have in the ‘Wilkes’ book shows the cupboard door directly below the shelf with the cash box on it. If this is correct I can’t think of another reason why the hinge would be ripped off , other than being stepped on , in an attempt to reach the 7’ shelf, can you?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Do you realize that even the prosecution don't believe what they're implying about Alan Close?

I have an interview with Mr. Walsh here. He says neither him nor Hemmerde believed it was possible and that they are certain Alan spoke to Wallace who was faking a woman's voice and wearing a dress. I swear to god.

He says it was dark so the height difference wouldn't matter... I do agree I think Wallace would've been caught off guard by Alan if he was involved in some way, I really don't think his arrival was ever accounted for.

Even they don't believe the line they put forward is plausible.

[WallaceWackedHer]

400m = 437 yards

I don’t see a single issue with these timings. We’re heading into conspiracy theory territory here. A minute or two either way makes no material difference. What was dishonest was the Defence trying to stretch the time to 6.45 when it obviously wasn’t.

If a minute or two doesn't matter then please admit the truth. 5 minutes is faster than the average walking speed even if he's ONLY walking.

Are you suggesting there will be absolutely no difference in the time it takes when he's calling at multiple houses etc? Because that has to be the suggestion - in COMBINATION with him speed walking - to arrive at 5 minutes. It's nonsense, it's not something that can be debated because it's mathematically proven to be nonsense.

And one of the officers, not the first bunch, literally used the term sprinted, that exact word. It was when he was asked if they got onto a moving tram car. He said though they indeed sprinted to get it, it had stopped and wasn't moving when they boarded.

That sounds like a fair test...

If we're gonna start going extremes (6.30 is an extreme, completely bogus time), why then ignore the evidence of Elsie Wright who heard the 6.30 church bells before she saw Alan Close who had not yet delivered to the Wallace home? 6.30 is very literally picking and choosing evidence to fit whatever you want it to fit, and ignoring everything else. It's no different than Rod.

I don't even see the reason to falsify the reality, do you really need that extra 5 minutes to believe in William's guilt? If it was 5 minutes later you think he's innocent?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's literally proven he couldn't do that at walking speed - even purely walking and doing NOTHING else he has to be speeding to get 5 minutes, which is one of the times they apparently fairly got in the "reconstructions".

It is not 6.30. It's not. Really. If you want to suggest he's jogging around even though nobody has ever suggested such a thing (e.g. Elsie Wright who crossed paths with him) then you can do that. But if he's walking at an ordinary pace he's not making it in 5 minutes.

The fact they ever got 5 minutes proves they are forcing him to speed walk (at the LEAST). Much like their sprinting leaps onto moving trams to get the time they wanted in the tram "reconstructions".

The reality is this: They felt 100% certain Wallace did it, but didn't think they could convince a jury if they told the actual truth that he would have about 5 to 10 minutes. Surely in part because they're failing to see the possibility that staging of a burglary could be done both before the murder or even on his return home.

I can promise you the times in their reconstructions are wholly inaccurate. There's really no question about it. It's a fact. If they're sprinting and jumping onto trams like a Bond movie (which I hope you can admit is unfair), what are the odds they're doing a fair recreation of the milk round?

One mile is 1,760 yards. If this takes 20 minutes to walk, then 500 yards would take about 20*500/1760 minutes which is 5 minutes 41 seconds. I'd give the answer as "5 or 6 minutes".

. The 5-minute walk. The 5-minute walk, also known as the “pedestrian shed” is considered to be the distance people are willing to walk before opting to drive. Based on the average walking speed a five-minute walk is represented by a radius measuring ¼ of a mile or about 400 meters.

400m = 437 yards

I don’t see a single issue with these timings. We’re heading into conspiracy theory territory here. A minute or two either way makes no material difference. What was dishonest was the Defence trying to stretch the time to 6.45 when it obviously wasn’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They literally said they sprinted to reach the tram, and that they got onto a moving tram car. Literally in black and white in those exact words. No ambiguity.

Some of them aren't even getting on at the tram stop Wallace claimed. Which is a smart idea given he could have lied, but obviously a note should be made of that.

Where did they say this? I’ve just re-read their testimony and no walking speeds were mentioned except for Fothergill’s “good walking speed” reply.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wildman had previously told his mother that he’d seen Close at the Wallace’s door at around 6.35. He later said 6.37 as he claimed to have seen that the time was 6.35 (by the clock) and that it took him 2 minutes to get to the Wallace’s (to deliver a newspaper next door.) He attempted to explain why he’d said 6.35 to his mother by saying that he was in a hurry which Hemmerde explained was hardly a timesaver, saying 6.35 instead of 6.37. I recall Murphy making a point about the hands of the clock. He visited the area and looked up at the clock from the position that Wildman had done and found that it would have been quite easy to have misread the clock by a couple of minutes due to the angle and the hands.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Fothergill said when asked that they used a - good walking speed. The phrase - jump on a tram - was used by Hemmerde. A turn of phrase.

Prendergast basically just relays the time the journey took.

Hill said nothing about how fast they were walking.

Gillroy ditto.

Oliver also makes no mention of the speed walked.

I can see no evidence that the so-called Anfield Harriers did anything untoward to arrive at the times stated.

They literally said they sprinted to reach the tram, and that they got onto a moving tram car. Literally in black and white in those exact words. No ambiguity.

Some of them aren't even getting on at the tram stop Wallace claimed. Which is a smart idea given he could have lied, but obviously a note should be made of that.

[WallaceWackedHer]

A scientist online, using what he considered an average walking time, got it to approximately 5.5 minutes. Obviously this is without collecting milk from the shop and making two deliveries.

We don’t know two things, a) how long these stops took and b) how quickly Allan Close walked.

Firstly, it’s not at all impossible that a fit young lad (perhaps eager to finish his rounds so that he could meet up with friends) might have walked quicker than the average time. We can’t know this but it’s possible.

Secondly, he collects milk that’s already waiting on the counter for him - how long? Possibly 10 seconds.

Thirdly, he delivers milk in Letchworth Street. How long for him to knock on the door, have it opened, he hands over the milk (I’m unsure if the customer took bottles or filled a jug but Close just said - took the milk in. Is it impossible that this was the work of a minute or so?

Fourthly, he drops of milk in a garden in Richmond Park. How long? Another 10 seconds.

So combined we get something like 6.75 minutes. Then we have to consider Close’s walking speed. Not everyone walks at an average speed. So it’s not at all impossible that he might have trimmed say 45 seconds off the time leaving 6 minutes.

They reconstructed the walk twice and got times of 5 and 6 minutes.

I see nothing at all impossible or unlikely in any of this. With the Johnston’s and the Holme’s pointing at 6.30 this tends us to look closer to 6.30 than 6.45. Wildman was confident that he was correct of course but why is he more reliable than Close? We can’t be certain but I see no reason for assuming that the police got Close to lie or exagerate. Either way there was enough time for Wallace to have killed Julia.

It's literally proven he couldn't do that at walking speed - even purely walking and doing NOTHING else he has to be speeding to get 5 minutes, which is one of the times they apparently fairly got in the "reconstructions".

It is not 6.30. It's not. Really. If you want to suggest he's jogging around even though nobody has ever suggested such a thing (e.g. Elsie Wright who crossed paths with him) then you can do that. But if he's walking at an ordinary pace he's not making it in 5 minutes.

The fact they ever got 5 minutes proves they are forcing him to speed walk (at the LEAST). Much like their sprinting leaps onto moving trams to get the time they wanted in the tram "reconstructions".

The reality is this: They felt 100% certain Wallace did it, but didn't think they could convince a jury if they told the actual truth that he would have about 5 to 10 minutes. Surely in part because they're failing to see the possibility that staging of a burglary could be done both before the murder or even on his return home.

I can promise you the times in their reconstructions are wholly inaccurate. There's really no question about it. It's a fact. If they're sprinting and jumping onto trams like a Bond movie (which I hope you can admit is unfair), what are the odds they're doing a fair recreation of the milk round?