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

[WallaceWackedHer]

I was just thinking.......

If the fire is already on (in order for it to get hot so as to burn the things as it did), then what exactly is Julia doing down there? We have already given some possibilities... What about another, she's stooping down to the cat which has indeed been used to help a stranger gain entry (albeit I don't think it's necessary as a scheme to get in).

[WallaceWackedHer]

It might also be worth suggesting that the blood spatter on the wall at the left hand side of the grate might not have been from the first blow (as Moste has suggested. Isnt it also possible that some of this blood might have come from the weapon as it was wielded by Wallace err...I mean the killer

I thought it might be. But the forensic experts made it clear they believed it was from the actual wound. I TRY to take as much of what they say as I can as fact, although it can be proven at least some of the things they've said are wrong - or for example the experts disagree with each other on trial.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I agree that, in fairness, we cannot say “so many blows, such frenzy, this can only have been someone that had a personal reason for killing her,” which would naturally point to William. It’s only statistics that say it’s far more often the case that it was a family member but it certainly doesn’t preclude any other suspect (unless they had no arms of course)

On the number of blows. I think it was Antony who first raised the possibility of fewer blows based on McFall’s wording. I don’t have any books with me to check but wasn’t it stated in response to him being asked how many blows to kill Julia? And that consequently his answer was specific. Three to kill her and the rest needlessly vicious? I’m working from memory here so I could be totally wrong.

I have the actual images of the autopsy report, I have no idea why I have not uploaded this on my site. Here it is:



The final sentence on the second page is where the three to four times is mentioned.

Yes it may be that the three to four he estimated would have killed her... But we must remember he contradicted this. On trial he said the very first strike killed her IIRC.

Also he drastically changed his time of death estimate, so that would seem to fit with him being the type of person to just dramatically change opinions on things.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I agree that, in fairness, we cannot say “so many blows, such frenzy, this can only have been someone that had a personal reason for killing her,” which would naturally point to William. It’s only statistics that say it’s far more often the case that it was a family member but it certainly doesn’t preclude any other suspect (unless they had no arms of course)

On the number of blows. I think it was Antony who first raised the possibility of fewer blows based on McFall’s wording. I don’t have any books with me to check but wasn’t it stated in response to him being asked how many blows to kill Julia? And that consequently his answer was specific. Three to kill her and the rest needlessly vicious? I’m working from memory here so I could be totally wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As WWH has said the door was moved for the benefit of the photographer. You’ll notice that in the photograph taken from the door there’s a chair in front of the sideboard but in the photograph taken from the window the chair had been moved to the side of the sideboard (which couldn’t have been its original position as the door wouldn’t have opened properly) This was probably so that the photographer could get through with his equipment without having to step over the blood around Julia’s head or accidentally disturbing the body.

It might also be worth suggesting that the blood spatter on the wall at the left hand side of the grate might not have been from the first blow (as Moste has suggested. Isnt it also possible that some of this blood might have come from the weapon as it was wielded by Wallace err...I mean the killer

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.