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

[WallaceWackedHer]

How could Wallace have known that she hadn’t regulated the fire? Wasn’t the fire regulated by the same knob used to turn it on and off?So if it was in the ‘off’ position because the fire had been turned off then he wouldn’t have been able to tell if it had been regulated? Would he?

Because the gas has to be turned on, then the fire lit, then the knob used again to tune it.

If he's innocent then it's just a theory, but still, considering he actually used that fireplace he might have reason for thinking that... If he's guilty then as far as I'm concerned that John Bull article is EXACTLY how the crime was committed down to the letter, as I said before I'd view it as a veiled confession.

I think he's saying she hadn't regulated it because things got burned (in other words, implying if she had, then it wouldn't have got burnt).

[WallaceWackedHer]

I've commissioned a VERY good colourizer to colourize the crime scene photos. She's VERY good:

http://www.laizkuczynski.com

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I know that I always appear to be the wet blanket but.....

I accept that because of the fire grate and the burns to the skirt and mackintosh that these three things are in all probability linked but it doesn’t automatically follow that Julia was struck as she was attending to the fire. Im 54 and when I was younger in the 70’s gas fires took a fair while to heat up. I’m sure Al would agree that it often seemed like ages until the room felt like the fire was actually on. We had it tough in the old days WWH So I’d have expected it to have taken a fair while to have heated up enough so that a skirt could have been singed on the grid. If it was anything like our old fire you could still touch the grid with your hands after it had been on for 5 minutes! So all I’m saying is that it’s difficult for me to see how the fire got hot enough quickly enough to cause the damage to her skirt. So this suggests to me that the fire had been on for a while when William...errr I mean the killer struck.

Seriously though this point isn’t made to strengthen the case as it doesn't point to anyone particular.

Good point Herlock. They took a while to get up to heat, they also cooled down rapidly. For the record, I'm not that old, but I grew up in Scotland, and we were a decade behind. And I was poor by Scottish standards.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yeah it seems he's saying here he doesn't believe she had regulated the fire meaning it would be at full blaze setting light to things:

http://www.williamherbertwallace.com.../jm_Oooks.jpeg

[WallaceWackedHer]

Redaction: Antony has a better version in his book. John Bull articles were ghostwritten, in Wallace's memoirs he says he believes his wife had indeed worn it even though he had never known her to ever do such a thing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've commissioned a VERY good colourizer to colourize the crime scene photos. She's VERY good:

http://www.laizkuczynski.com

That will be interesting to see. I have a few colourised b+w movies and they’re really well done.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good point Herlock. They took a while to get up to heat, they also cooled down rapidly. For the record, I'm not that old, but I grew up in Scotland, and we were a decade behind. And I was poor by Scottish standards.

You mean you’re not as ancient as me

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah it seems he's saying here he doesn't believe she had regulated the fire meaning it would be at full blaze setting light to things:

http://www.williamherbertwallace.com.../jm_Oooks.jpeg

That does appear to be what he’s saying but was the fire regulated using the same knob that was used to turn it on? Because if it was he couldn’t have known if she’d regulated it or not.

[WallaceWackedHer]

That does appear to be what he’s saying but was the fire regulated using the same knob that was used to turn it on? Because if it was he couldn’t have known if she’d regulated it or not.

I think it was. I can look more in the papers about that fireplace (a Wilson's Sunbeam Gas Fire), but I don't see any reason why there'd be more than one knob. YouTube videos of gas fires like that seem to use the same mechanism.

He could not possibly have known whether she had regulated the fire.

I think he's just theorizing that was the case because that's an explanation for how it came to be that the jacket the guy held as a shield was burned like that.

I'm not overly sure how those things work. Like what would an "unregulated" fire look like, flames licking out through the grid? Lol.

His memoirs posted by Antony have him believing his wife had worn it though, and I know those John Bull articles were ghostwritten... But to what extent I do not know... I think a very small extent.

---

Based on what you are all saying about the time for the fire to heat and so on, I think it must be the case that the fire was lit at least some good few minutes before Julia was killed? I don't think it's easy to imagine a killer crouching in the corner behind her armchair for McFall's suggestion that Julia's sitting on it... So what was she doing exactly?

If it was cold in there, maybe she left it full blaze so it would heat up faster, then had gone to turn it down once the room was warm enough.

McFall's claim about the clean seat should have us consider the killer himself sat in that chair. Julia doing something with the fire like turning down the intensity of the fire, then going to turn back to the guy or turn to face the parlour doorway and armchair guy smacks her with something - REALLY hard.

That would have her fall into the fireplace too, since the chair is a bit horizontally further from the fire - closer to the door I mean, so Julia's down by the fire, the killer in the chair, the direction of force on the left of Julia's head (as in her left) will then send her right.

That fits the facts extremely well, doesn't it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok I realise I’m in my ‘guilty Wallace’ territory but this doesn’t have to be Wallace striking the blow....

If the killer was slightly to the right of the fire grate and maybe a couple of feet back (and there’s a seat there so you might even suggest that a visitor was sitting down) Julia goes to the fire (maybe to regulate it) or she takes something from the mantelpiece. She then turns around to her right to face the other person. So the position is now...Julia with her back to the fire grate and the killer just a foot or two in front of her and to her left (theres a table in front of that sofa so the backs of his legs would be almost touching that.) He swings the first blow right-hand and hits Julia on the left side of her head and from slightly in front of her so she falls backward onto the fire. Of course this means the killer already had the weapon but he could have picked it up while her back was turned or she was out of the room (or you might say that a non-Wallace killer had it in an inside pocket of his coat.)

[WallaceWackedHer]

Ok I realise I’m in my ‘guilty Wallace’ territory but this doesn’t have to be Wallace striking the blow....

If the killer was slightly to the right of the fire grate and maybe a couple of feet back (and there’s a seat there so you might even suggest that a visitor was sitting down) Julia goes to the fire (maybe to regulate it) or she takes something from the mantelpiece. She then turns around to her right to face the other person. So the position is now...Julia with her back to the fire grate and the killer just a foot or two in front of her and to her left (theres a table in front of that sofa so the backs of his legs would be almost touching that.) He swings the first blow right-hand and hits Julia on the left side of her head and from slightly in front of her so she falls backward onto the fire. Of course this means the killer already had the weapon but he could have picked it up while her back was turned or she was out of the room (or you might say that a non-Wallace killer had it in an inside pocket of his coat.)

Yeah I'm uh, really really not good at envisioning directions etc... I'm honestly laughably bad so this might take a while for me to figure this out. Drawings usually help me more.

But I think what you're saying is, Julia has turned to her right. So she's basically looking at where the table is on the sofa side? And the killer is about there?... Well you see, the issue is the blood spray, because it's concentrated in the corner on the left side behind the armchair.

I'm not a forensic expert by any means, but I'd think wherever the wound was opened up, blood would come back directly in the direction of the assailant, unless he had hit her on the side or something of that nature (and still he might get a tiny bit his way). But I think they said this strike was mostly up and down, with only a little horizontal action.

The forensics are trying to say the first strike is what killed her and sent the blood spraying behind the armchair to the left of the fireplace. So I'm trying to place her in a position where, once the wound is opened, it is facing that corner of the room...

Doesn't it also look like there isn't blood on the middle of the violin case yet spots on the sides? If that's so, then it would be basically proven someone who wasn't Julia was sitting in it. Let me bust out my trusty HD tier magazine yet again. One momento.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Ah nevermind, the case was apparently stained.

You have suggested she might have been sitting in the
armchair ? — Yes.

You see, upon that armchair in the corner, a violin-
case ? — Yes.

And on that violin-case, large splashes of blood ? — ^Yes.

It was on the chair when she was struck, was it not ? —
Yes, the violin-case.

That does not much suggest she was sitting in the chair ?
— Yes, it docs. I have said she would be leaning forward.

There was room here for two chairs ? — But you will
see, on the wall, blood-splashes, and the body would
intervene.

You have agreed with me, the suggestion is a possible
one ? — Yes.

Your suggestion was, she was in the armchair ? — It
brings the head into the same position in both cases.

Will you tell me how blood-stains got on the violin-
case ? — There is a direct line open between her head and
the blood-patches. It can be seen to be falling.

She is struck in front ? — Yes, the blow goes up.

It goes out sideways, and the violin-case is behind her ?
—Yes.

Whereabouts were the blood-splashes on the violin-
case ? — They would be on the top.

They go right along, do not they ? — Yes.

So apparently there's blood over the violin case.

But McFall's suggestion seems impossible, because she could not fall from that chair into the fireplace, it's not possible. At least, not for her skirt to:



This is soooooo puzzling lol.

I think it makes the most sense considering where the blood spray is, that she's been doing something around the mantlepiece or fire (probably fire, because she wouldn't need to bend down for things on the mantlepiece lest she dropped something), and then turned her head left. That way the wound is going to be facing the correct direction, AND the force of the blow is going to put her into the flames.

What's that vase thing on the mantlepiece? No valuables in there I presume.

---

Your idea of the direction she was facing makes the most sense, but doesn't match what forensics are telling us regarding that left corner spray being from the first strike. But I think it makes perfect sense otherwise.

[moste]

I think it should be considered ,that the first blow (dependent on the bluntness of the weapon) may not have actually
broken the skin. Clearly the assailant was in a frenzy fuelled by intense hatred to deliver so many blows with so much force.If this was not Wallace's doing , the attacker hadn’t struck before , and wasn’t to strike again.I would say HS’s depiction in post 505 sounds about right.
Did anyone notice the parlour door had been removed on the snap taken from inside the room , wonder what that’s all about?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I think it should be considered ,that the first blow (dependent on the bluntness of the weapon) may not have actually
broken the skin. Clearly the assailant was in a frenzy fuelled by intense hatred to deliver so many blows with so much force.If this was not Wallace's doing , the attacker hadn’t struck before , and wasn’t to strike again.I would say HS’s depiction in post 505 sounds about right.
Did anyone notice the parlour door had been removed on the snap taken from inside the room , wonder what that’s all about?

Oh damn, that's clever. Very nice. I had never even once considered that possibility.

So okay. She's hit into the fire. And as she attempts to get up, THAT'S when her skull was shattered...

If the first blow caused no broken skin, it may well have been from behind. Hence into the fire. The kill shot being as she attempts to get up or something.

Does anyone here see any reason why this isn't the best explanation?

The photographer said the door was removed so they could take a better photo without obstruction IIRC. He was called on trial.

[WallaceWackedHer]

The frenzy myth needs to end though.

First of all MANY burglars who killed practiced "overkill" to avoid the witness regaining consciousness to give a testimony then dying and a charge of murder being delivered.

Second of all, McFall originally said 3 blows. If he says 3 to 12, the margin is so wide as to be completely unreliable.

The amount of strikes does not show it's William. And fuether if William wanted to smash her head in anyway, but wants to get away blood free, the less hits the better.