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

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I think the defence has the upper hand on the explanation here. Julia was indeed wearing the jacket, rising after having lit the fireplace, head turning back towards the visitor as she rose who at that point struck ferociously.

The problem for me with the suggestion of Julia wearing the mackintosh over her shoulders is that I’ve never been able to visualise a single scenario to explain how the mackintosh came to be bunched up underneath her body. The overwhelming likelihood would have been that the mackintosh would have simply dropped to the floor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So I'm reading the appeal trial I uploaded, it seems Hemmerde is rather adamant that the money in the "ornament" upstairs (an empty jam pot) is the money from the cash box.

There's 4 pounds missing, 4 pounds in the pot with a smear of blood.

Now I've seen it mentioned here many times that this can't be the same money because the money in the cash box would be coinage and notes, not just four pound notes. Is this a definite thing?

I think the prosecution made an error here in saying the killer must have gone upstairs to put the notes in the pot after killing Julia. Well, actually if they're pursuing the guilt of Wallace, a far better suggestion is that he stuffed it in an empty jam pot which was downstairs, and moved it upstairs when he got home (or even moved the already stained notes up there after getting home).

The defence also pursues a great line of reasoning which I strongly agree with. If the cash box is 7 feet up in the air, why would the robber take the cash box down at all? If he's standing on the ledge you see there - and I contend that could be related to the breaking of the cabinet door - then it's more natural he'd rummage it while standing up there and put it back before he steps down.

The coins dropping to the floor may have something to do with this, as I believe it was said it would be somewhat awkward to do. Did Wallace ever comment on those coins on the floor and say where they're from? I think they're important.

I haven’t gotten around to reading anything from your second visit yet but I intend to over the weekend. As for the missing cash Wallace said that there was “....one pound Treasury note; ten shilling Treasury notes; about 30 or 40 shillings in silver; a Postal Order for four shillings and six pence...and a cheque....for five pounds seventeen shillings...” So that was 11 notes in total. Rod used to say something to the effect that the notes upstairs were no good to any thief for some reason. I can’t recall why not though.

If Wallace did take the cash upstairs when he got home this gives us another reason why he avoided the Parlour

About the cash box being on that 7 foot high shelf. Surely anyone of average height could have reached it from the ground?

I can’t recall Wallace mentioning the coins tbh.

[WallaceWackedHer]

So I'm reading the appeal trial I uploaded, it seems Hemmerde is rather adamant that the money in the "ornament" upstairs (an empty jam pot) is the money from the cash box.

There's 4 pounds missing, 4 pounds in the pot with a smear of blood.

Now I've seen it mentioned here many times that this can't be the same money because the money in the cash box would be coinage and notes, not just four pound notes. Is this a definite thing?

I think the prosecution made an error here in saying the killer must have gone upstairs to put the notes in the pot after killing Julia. Well, actually if they're pursuing the guilt of Wallace, a far better suggestion is that he stuffed it in an empty jam pot which was downstairs, and moved it upstairs when he got home (or even moved the already stained notes up there after getting home).

The defence also pursues a great line of reasoning which I strongly agree with. If the cash box is 7 feet up in the air, why would the robber take the cash box down at all? If he's standing on the ledge you see there - and I contend that could be related to the breaking of the cabinet door - then it's more natural he'd rummage it while standing up there and put it back before he steps down.

The coins dropping to the floor may have something to do with this, as I believe it was said it would be somewhat awkward to do. Did Wallace ever comment on those coins on the floor and say where they're from? I think they're important.

...

Now as for the position of Julia, I see McFall suggests she's sitting in the armchair with her head facing the couch opposite. She's struck from the front. This is very much consistent with a visitor doing her in ("as though in conversation") said McFall. Though I don't know how, when struck in this position, it came to be that she fell skirt-first into the flames. Though there's evidence the killer handled her (the hair pulled away, perhaps the bruise on her upper arm).

The defence contends she was bending down to the fireplace with the jacket round her shoulders. This also fits well with the burning of the jacket, it's the immediate conclusion Mrs. Johnston came to. Roland Oliver contends she was hit while rising. Again this makes sense very well, since if she's not on her knees, it follows she could well fall skirt-first into those flames. If the jacket is on her that could also contribute to how the skirt was singed... Though there are horizontal scorch marks on the skirt strongly suggesting direct contact with the grid of the fireplace... An officer said the fireplace had no grid but looking at photos he seems very wrong and I see no other way for such a pattern to occur naturally.

I think the defence has the upper hand on the explanation here. Julia was indeed wearing the jacket, rising after having lit the fireplace, head turning back towards the visitor as she rose who at that point struck ferociously.

He would then of course hit her again and again: "Dead men tell no tales."

...

Because of everything... It looks a lot like this was someone known to Julia OR the person planned in advance to murder her first before the robbery. OR that there are two intruders in the home, one in the parlour while man two comes in the back, the sound of coins falling alerting Julia causing the man in the parlour to strike her.

A stranger to Julia, in my opinion, may well have hit her. It really depends on the mindset of the man. A strike to knock her out which they then realized had killed her is also possible.

However Rod's idea that the singular man was caught while sneak thieving does not make the slightest sense. In such a case, Julia would be found dead in the kitchen where she found him, or hall/scullery as she attempted to flee. IF it was a man known to her, or ESPECIALLY if it were a young child (youth gangs of housebreakers were very active at the time), she might very well not flee after seeing what he was doing, and THAT must be considered!

I think a two man robbery would be the best fit, as in a classic distraction robbery.

Or a hit job as suggested by Gannon. AKA someone has gone in there expressly to murder her for some reason.

...

In a robbery, the robbery may have been interrupted in my opinion which may have led to the lack of stolen items. Or simply it was a targeted strike. Get in, take the supposed insurance jackpot, and run. But Wallace, if innocent, I think he may have been right about the intruder still being in the house when he got back and couldn't get in the back door.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Very un Pierre like......

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Nice to see the full unadultered accounts out there, no playing cards close to the chest, no wait and see book plans. Thanks.

[moste]

The full appeal trial has now been uploaded here:

https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...rbert-wallace/

This has never been transcribed or uploaded before. Again give it a little time to load since there are a lot of images on the page. They will be blurred at first until loaded.

The thought that immediately comes to mind with the possession of these transcripts, is that one can paint ones own picture ,and draw ones own conclusions, without the slightest interference from Colourful authors trying to press home their often biased conclusions. Excellent work wwh. Happy reading everyone

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for all your efforts WWH. I could do with cancelling the next month just to read through everything.

[WallaceWackedHer]

The full appeal trial has now been uploaded here:

https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...rbert-wallace/

This has never been transcribed or uploaded before. Again give it a little time to load since there are a lot of images on the page. They will be blurred at first until loaded.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Great work WWH, very impressive and much appreciated by us all !

Thanks, I just added links on that page that will skip you to any testimony you wish to see. Navigation should be much easier now. I added a Lazy Load script too so the page should load faster.

[Ven]

The show about Wallace was probably on because of the date...you just happened to come across the mother lode 89 years (+1 day) since the crime happened!!

[Ven]

Great work WWH, very impressive and much appreciated by us all !

[WallaceWackedHer]

Okay guys, here is the full, unabridged trial of William Herbert Wallace:

https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...rbert-wallace/

---

I have the appeal trial also but I will probably upload that tomorrow as I am quite tired. Also because I took over 900 photos (which took me from around 11 AM until about 6 PM) I haven't had much time to really read it myself.

Hopefully that all loads and works for you guys. Should be 334 pages there.

I'm also going to add clickable links for each testimony (so for example a list of the people who testified, and you could click, say, John Sharpe Johnston and it would take you straight to the beginning of his examination).

(The page file size is enormous so you might have to wait a while for it to load fully).

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

May I join in doffing my hat to WWH, great work mate.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Put on BBC iPlayer, The One Show in the biggest coincidence ever is apparently discussing the Wallace case. The same day I go down to photograph more files lol. My mate says so anyway, just watching it now.

Spooky action!

[WallaceWackedHer]

Put on BBC iPlayer, The One Show in the biggest coincidence ever is apparently discussing the Wallace case. The same day I go down to photograph more files lol. My mate says so anyway, just watching it now.