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

[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.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Very un Pierre like......

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

The issue with this of course is that we can’t name a single person who might have wanted Julia dead apart from William. Her social circle was exceedingly narrow so who could she have upset or offended so badly? It’s not impossible of course as we can never know everything that went on.

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

I will not discuss the parlour thing lmao. But yes that is a reason he might have gone upstairs. About the shillings and notes and all this, is this something we can say is true? Because I mean if it was shown there were four pound notes in the cash box, and then just so happened to be bloodied four pound notes upstairs in a random "ornament" (jam pot) that is clearly incredible important.

Rod is wrong about the notes upstairs what is he talking about? If there is an intruder it's quite possible he didn't go upstairs at all in my view. If he did leave those notes, he left them BECAUSE of the blood smear he saw he had created (or because Wallace knocked on the door or w.e. causing him to abort his actions). But as per how the case was put on trial, just like with the clot on the toilet pan it's ambiguous and therefore probably dangerous to use in any sort of argument.

Really a lot of my thinking on the "intruder going upstairs" thing could be swayed by whether I can confirm Slemen's claim that the burglary a month prior also had the upstairs bedroom with random pillows and blankets tossed around. I will say, that so far, everything he has said and I have checked has turned out to be true. I have not found anything he has claimed to be a lie - for example I verified the names of the residents he claimed had been burgled and they were indeed living at the address he says and which had been robbed... And because of the VERYYYY obscure and weird mention in Johnston's alleged confession regarding the cat, I do believe he really did say that (but he had dementia, so.........). Only someone very aquainted with the case and the Wallaces would pick up something like that.

Of course if that is true (about the earlier burglary having the fake-ransacked bedroom), it seems like there is some sort of common M.O. there which absolutely can't be ignored.

...

You could not reach that box from the ground. I'm 5'11 and can't reach on top of some of the cabinets in my kitchen - if I do I have to use my fingertips to edge stuff off and catch it. It was a little over 7 feet high too (the surveyor said 7'2")... If you did try to reach it from the ground you'd have a damn hard time doing it... And back then the average height was shorter wasn't it.

The defence's suggestion about that raincoat is very reasonable. The fact is that if it was around her shoulders, it is somewhat "attached" to her body... Not so much as if her arms were in it, but still, in a position where I don't think it would just fall straight to the ground. But more importantly - there is evidence the mackintosh caught light and was stamped out (fragments on the hearth rug apparently indicate this)... I can see this happening, then Julia being yanked out by her hair and thus ending up in the position in which she was found - on top of the jacket which had been stamped out on the rug. If any part of Julia's body was on that mackintosh when the mackintosh was yanked out, that could also have shifted her body along with it.

I actually think other suggestions are very difficult to envision. There are so many things that I can think are wrong with the suggestions... Even very minor points like how if the killer was WEARING the jacket which had caught light, you'd probably expect part of his clothing to become singed unless he was nude... And if he was nude he has to get dressed after which adds on time. That's just a minor thing but there is so much - it's very difficult to make it work in your mind's eye.

The defence's proposition however, works, if she was rising from the fireplace or alternatively, midway through bending down while looking towards the assailant.

...

If Wallace is involved in Julia's death I think the evidence is highly suggestive that it had to be a hit job. The open newspaper is practically as good of an indicator as the arrival of the milk boy but not much is made of it. It is possible Julia decided to start reading the paper exactly as it arrived of course, but yet again it's something that's cutting more and more into treading the line of time... And with fingering Wallace as the killer, ANYTHING that could remotely suggest a later time of death is always going to be a bad thing.

And Wallace, he has to get the trams all with zero wait time if he left at the later times suggested by the police, plus the officers who did those tram time tests, some admitted they had sprinted. Milk boy Alan Close, to make the trip in the time the police """reconstruction""" came up with, just to WALK THAT DISTANCE WITHOUT EVEN DELIVERING MILK (500 yards) would take over 5 minutes for an adult, that's without the emptying of milk jugs or waiting at doors etc. So frankly their reconstructed time is a complete and utter farce. I see no reason why it should not just be disregarded entirely. Alan Close did NOT arrive in Wolverton Street 5 or 6 minutes after viewing the clock. He did not!!!!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are various aspects of the case that I have varying levels of confidence in. One that I have a high level of confidence in is the question of the mackintosh. I’d say that it would have been pretty close to impossible under any circumstances for the mackintosh to have ended up where it did by chance. How could she have had it over her shoulders, get whacked on the head and ended up with her head to the door and the mackintosh bunched up underneath her body? Ditto if she was, for some unknown reason, holding it in her hands. It had to be a deliberate placement and that points to Wallace alone.

The evidence points to Close being at the Wallace’s earlier than 6.45. I see nothing wrong with the reconstructed timings. I think that we go into conspiracy theory territory if we accuse the police of manufacturing a time. Initially Close had said between 6.30 and 6.45. We can also add that the Holme’s heard a knock at the Wallace’s front door at around 6.30 (this could only have been Close.) Wildman was an impressive witness who even explained how he always checked the clock to moderate his delivery times. He said that he was in Wolverton Street at 6.35 and he saw Close at the Wallace’s door with the door open waiting for the jug at 6.37/6.38. Wildman was the last survivor of the case and was alive when Murphy wrote his book. He remained absolutely adamant that his timing was correct. Then we have Mrs Johnston who said that the milk was delivered at “about 6.30 that night.” I think that we can say that Julia Wallace closed the door on Allan Close sometime between 6.33 and 6.38.

[WallaceWackedHer]

It's conspiracy to say the police manufactured a time when they admitted to literally sprinting to get the tram? It's pretty blatant they were going to make it fit whether it did or not, and them sprinting in reconstructions proves that.

Roland Oliver says Alan's journey is 500 yards. He did not make that trip in 5 minutes while also carrying milk jugs and knocking on doors and emptying and collecting jugs etc. That is more than a 5 minute walk for an adult even without knocking on doors etc. Like 6 minutes even if you were legitimately just walking and not delivering anything.

He didn't do it in 5 minutes. He simply didn't. That should be accepted as a fact. Wildman's time is clearly more accurate. That's the reality.

There's evidence the jacket caught light and was stomped out. Julia's body was pulled out of the fire and dropped on top of it. That's what fits. The defence's proposition is absolutely the most likely. I mean even in one motion because Julia was ultimately moved... The placement of her feet is literally in the opposite direction than it would be when struck unless McFall is COMPLETELY incompetent... So her body was 100% definitely without a doubt moved, and very reasonably ended up on top of the raincoat which was already at that point on the rug.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I can see RodCrosby has been coming online but has so far not posted anything. I would really like the missing part of the Radio City show for reasons of completionism and transparency. For the benefit of the general public.

I hope Rod will be so kind as to upload the missing section, or that someone can track down the call in segment of the Radio City show.

Of course I will credit him for it as I did for the John Bull articles (which were higher quality images than the ones I took of them).

[moste]

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

Hi, HS. I’m 5’ 9”. and can’t reach a 7 foot shelf in my kitchen without the use of our step stool ,and average height in 1931 was something like 5’ 7”, I believe. Anyway, Wallace at 6’ 2” would not have a problem with the shelf height, consequently either a burglar ( hence the murderer) had tried to use the cupboard door as a peg up , Wallace if guilty took this business into account by making the intruder appear much shorter than himself, cunning ploy ? Or was he not that smart? I say he was.

[WallaceWackedHer]

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

Hi, HS. I’m 5’ 9”. and can’t reach a 7 foot shelf in my kitchen without the use of our step stool ,and average height in 1931 was something like 5’ 7”, I believe. Anyway, Wallace at 6’ 2” would not have a problem with the shelf height, consequently either a burglar ( hence the murderer) had tried to use the cupboard door as a peg up , Wallace if guilty took this business into account by making the intruder appear much shorter than himself, cunning ploy ? Or was he not that smart? I say he was.

I don't feel he's that intelligent with that type of thinking. There's decent evidence he's not very good at thinking ahead, not just in his chess skills, but in aspects of his trip around Menlove Gardens - whether real OR fake.

I very much agree with the leg up thing (probably using the cabinet lid as a hand grip as he pulled himself up) and I think it's a plausible suggestion for how that cabinet "lid" came to be broken. Though I cannot manage to see where this so-called lid is or what it came off of, though I've studied the photograph many times.

If Wallace were to empty that cash box, it would be more natural that he would take it down and then empty it, since his feet will be firmly planted on the ground and he can actually do so without trouble. So in that case, he has actually gone to the trouble of putting it back up. This absolutely makes no sense at all in any scenario, except that it was "instinct" to put it back because he's used to doing it. I think that's a poor excuse for something that can't really be explained.

If you imagine a shorter man has stepped up to reach that box, to take it down he has to cradle the box with one hand/arm and then carefully lower himself down. I don't think he could use both hands unless he were standing on an object with more foot space (such as a chair), although it would still be natural to use one hand for some kind of support even then. That would be as opposed to simply remaining where he is and emptying the contents there and then, without ever stepping down onto the ground.

That is a reasonable explanation for why the cash box is up on the shelf, and in my estimation is better than having to excuse the behavior as habit (in a man who - apparently - has this criminal genius tier skill of pre-empting things).

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's conspiracy to say the police manufactured a time when they admitted to literally sprinting to get the tram? It's pretty blatant they were going to make it fit whether it did or not, and them sprinting in reconstructions proves that.

Roland Oliver says Alan's journey is 500 yards. He did not make that trip in 5 minutes while also carrying milk jugs and knocking on doors and emptying and collecting jugs etc. That is more than a 5 minute walk for an adult even without knocking on doors etc. Like 6 minutes even if you were legitimately just walking and not delivering anything.

He didn't do it in 5 minutes. He simply didn't. That should be accepted as a fact. Wildman's time is clearly more accurate. That's the reality.

There's evidence the jacket caught light and was stomped out. Julia's body was pulled out of the fire and dropped on top of it. That's what fits. The defence's proposition is absolutely the most likely. I mean even in one motion because Julia was ultimately moved... The placement of her feet is literally in the opposite direction than it would be when struck unless McFall is COMPLETELY incompetent... So her body was 100% definitely without a doubt moved, and very reasonably ended up on top of the raincoat which was already at that point on the rug.

There really is very little issue with Close’s testimony when you read it in full. This was a 14 year old boy being grilled in court by someone trying to show that he was wrong or lying. Cross didn’t waiver on his timings though. He saw the clock at 6.25. He did the route on a reconstruction twice with the police (including deliveries etc) and was timed at 6 minutes and 5 minutes. He didn’t have lots of deliveries. He went into his dads shop on Sedley Street and his cans were on the counter waiting for him so he was in and out. Then he made a delivery in Letchworth Street (knocking at the door in the same way as with Julia) He then goes into Richmond Park and makes one delivery (by simply placing two bottles in the garden) Then it was on to Number 29.

So he basically popped into the shop to pick up milk that was on the counter waiting for him then made a delivery in Letchworth Street then dropped two bottles into a garden on the way to number 29 Wolverton Street. 5 or 6 minutes. I can’t see much of an issue here for a healthy 14 year old lad. Even if we stretch it to 8 minutes it gets him to number 29 at 6.33. Doubling it to 10 minutes still gets him there at 6.35. No issues here for me.

Close said that he’d previously told the other children that he’d been in Wolverton Street and had seen Mrs Wallace between 6.30 and 6.45 which was perfectly true if I inexact. They mention 6.45 and obviously the Defence latch onto this time.

So, to sum up, we have Close’s quite detailed statement backed up by two police reconstructions. We also have Close being firm on this under cross-examination that he would have gotten to number 29 at around 6.30. We have Mrs Johnston saying that the milk was delivered around 6.30 and the Holme’s saying that they heard a knock on the Wallace’s door at around 6.30. Then we have Wildman believing that he’d seen Close at the door of number 29 at around 6.37/6.38.

So who to believe? Or is it likely that the accurate time is somewhere in between? Remember, two adults put the time nearer to 6.30. Either way it wasn’t 6.45 when Julia was last seen alive. There is no problem with the time available for William to have killed Julia unless we have Wallace walking around number 29 like Neil Armstrong on the moon.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can see RodCrosby has been coming online but has so far not posted anything. I would really like the missing part of the Radio City show for reasons of completionism and transparency. For the benefit of the general public.

I hope Rod will be so kind as to upload the missing section, or that someone can track down the call in segment of the Radio City show.

Of course I will credit him for it as I did for the John Bull articles (which were higher quality images than the ones I took of them).

There might be a chance that he doesn’t have it WWH. He posted the other three so I can’t see why he’d have omitted the fourth one?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. It's conspiracy to say the police manufactured a time when they admitted to literally sprinting to get the tram? It's pretty blatant they were going to make it fit whether it did or not, and them sprinting in reconstructions proves that.

Where do we have proof that they sprinted?