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

[John G]

Well with the bar, in fairness if it was wrapped (which I'd expect if Wallace did it), there wouldn't be blood stains - but then I wouldn't imagine he'd hide it either.

Regarding Close, if we assume Wallace is guilty then had Close come earlier he would simply have arrived at Menlove Gardens earlier (as it happens, he only had 10 minutes to spare).

However even if he killed Julia I don't think Alan Close was ever accounted for. If he was, and he was the be all and end all of the alibi, when cops asked Wallace who last saw Julia alive he's instantly going to say the milk boy. The milk boy didn't even come forward straight away did he? I think I saw he came on Sunday on the trial, though he told his pals on the Wednesday. He's a bit of a mess on the stand so I can't tell... But if he came Sunday, Wallace must surely have been sweating thinking his alibi is not going to say anything.

Wallace's plan if he killed Julia would be a little ridiculous. He destroys his own defence with a lot of his later statements. For example: say he left his home at 18:45, if he knows Alan is so vital (which even if guilty I don't think he accounted for), why wouldn't he fudge 5 minutes? The police could hardly deem him guilty/the courts could hardly hang him for being 5 minutes out on his time estimate!!!

He is also much better off with a more normal name and real address slightly further away to destroy the objections like "why didn't you check a directory in advance?" or "why didn't the bizarre name make you suspicious?"... And if he's going to use Qualtrough he's clearly attempting to frame Parry/Marsden....... But why? He says Julia would never admit strangers, only the cash box is ransacked.

Isn't it more likely he'd get away with a crime if he just looted Julia's handbag and obvious items instead of being like "oh yeah by the way the cash box was stolen from and only about 3 people know where I keep it."

Is he really THAT lucky that out of this tiny suspect pool he's forced upon the case the guy he names as his prime suspect just so happens to give a false alibi, and one of the others has "flu"? What are the odds?!

Is he smart enough to foresee the cafè being so perfect to frame Parry due to the chess fixtures being publicly visible and Parry having seen him there while he was at chess before?

I'd say unless he already knew for sure Parry and/or Marsden had no alibi (such as in a conspiracy) to know he could throw them under the bus, it would be utterly stupid to tighten the suspect pool to all of 3 or 4 people or w.e... I really don't think there's much chance at all of a solo Wallace theory.

Yes, good points about the suspect pool and Chess fixtures. I think the most important thing about Close is that, to be an alibi at all, he's got to hope he notes the time with some accuracy; but why would he do that, considering he didn't even have a watch?

Regarding the iron bar. He could have wrapped it in cloth, but that just creates additional problems, i.e. if that's what happened then we have both the murder weapon and the blood stained cloth unaccounted for. Moreover, in order to remove the cloth he would have to have handled it, thus getting his hands covered in blood, which we know didn't happen.

[John G]

I've come out of posting retirement - very briefly - to warn everyone to beware of commentators creating strawmen.

This is how Julia Wallace ends up in the parlour according to my interpretation of Accomplice (other variations are possible): "He glanced up to see the slight figure of Julia standing by the door, the sepia glow of the gas lamp illuminating the shocked expression on her face. Her instincts were always to avoid confrontation, and they prevailed even now. "Mr Qualtrough," she said faintly, her voice quivering with fear. "I forgot I'm due round at my neighbour's. I'm late as it is. You'll have to leave now." She turned, hoping it was the last time she would see the man, and grabbed a mackintosh from the coatstand in the hall. She draped it around her shoulders and headed to the front door. At this point the intruder should have bolted by the back door and left with the money as planned. This was the rational course of action, but Parry had unwittingly enlisted the services of a man with a short fuse whose response to confrontation was invariably the same: violence. Already angered by the perceived betrayal of the trifling spoils, he believed Julia was fleeing to raise the alarm. A primeval fight-or-die instinct flared up like a forest fire within him. Julia felt a grip tighten like a python around her left arm, pulling her back and then forcing her into the parlour. Paralysed by fear, she could not cry out, as if all the air in her lungs and been squeezed from her. Without saying a word, the intruder shoved her into the large armchair to the left of the fireplace. His eyes were crazed with panic and rage. Glancing down, he saw an iron bar standing on the hearth..." (Move to Murder, p. 124)

This is summarised by WWH as: "What she wouldn't do after finding out a stranger is not who he says he is (as per CCJ's idea), is go and cozy herself by the fire."

Now a brief point on Accomplice Plus (Parry the caller, Marsden the sneak thief, an unknown man the distractor). I like many points of this theory, but if Accomplice Plus is true, then Wallace is innocent, and when he says that Julia invariably bolted the backyard gate and bolted the back door, leaving Wallace to enter at the front when he returned at night, we should believe him. In which case, no duplicate key is going to get a second accomplice into the house through the back (the counter that the back door and gate were found unbolted by Wallace on his return is not effective because the killer almost certainly left by both). And Marsden cannot enter through the front because then he would be identified by Julia and the whole Qualtrough ruse would fall apart anyway.

At this point, if I had an agenda, I should just say "Unfortunately, Accomplice Plus is impossible" and leave it at that. However, I like the theory and there is a neat way to save it from this potential defeater. The distractor in the parlour asks to go the lavatory. Julia will almost certainly send him to the outside WC - meaning he has to unbolt the back door and is then able to unbolt the back gate, which is adjacent to the outside WC. The second accomplice (Marsden) is waiting in the entry and will enter the house a minute after the distrator has gone back inside. Good plan, eh?

However, this means Accomplice Plus borrows even more from Accomplice: "His words were exactly as Parry had instructed. 'I’m sorry to impose, Mrs Wallace, but can I use the lavatory?' As he expected, Julia directed him to the outside toilet, as she had done with Parry many times when he had called for musical afternoons." (Move to Murder, p. 122). Indeed, Accomplice Plus and Accomplice are identical on all the key evidentiary areas (Wallace = innocent, Parry = Caller, Brine = True, Parkes = True, Hall = mistaken) which means logically, for any reasonable person, Accomplice Plus cannot be the best (#1) and Accomplice the worst (#10). Of course, Accomplice Plus might be superior to Accomplice, and it might be the best overall theory, too.

Hi CCJ,

Yes, some well thought out scenarios. Julia draping the cloth over her shoulder seems the most plausible explanation of how the Macintosh got burned. I certainty don't see Wallace setting fire to himself in his own home. And the idea that he was trying to destroy evidence is just absurd. Firstly, if he was he didn't do a very good job, as the coat was only modestly scorched. Secondly, I can't see him wasting even more of his previous time with such an endeavour: for such a strategy to he effective, i.e. to eliminate the blood evidence, he would have had to spend time pretty much setting light to the whole coat. And if he was crazy enough to do that he may well have ended up burning his own house down!

[ColdCaseJury]

Julia didn't bolt the back door. I've read in a book Wallace said Julia bolted the yard door and being protected would thus not bolt the back door! Someone who jumped the yard wall would be able to get in with a dupe key.

I've thought of this before.

Also the stranger can unbolt it of course - but it is far better that he never ventures out into the kitchen.

As you posted here, the passage to me is legitimately almost impossible and it's not bias. Indeed my idea is very similar to yours but the differences I think make it impossible. Julia paralyzed by fear from making any sound while the guy drags her into the parlour (not disturbing any furniture in this struggle), and forces her down into the chair?

Come on man... You know that didn't happen. He would just bash her in the hallway... This is why it's last, I even put a note about it - it's a great idea but the way it's presented is impossible.

Plus Julia screamed when Mr. Cadwallader entered their bedroom at night. I mean I'm sure being grabbed is scarier but there's some slight evidence she wouldn't go mute.

Hi WWH!

I see you completely evade the point about the strawman.

Julia screaming when Cadwallader entered the room unexpectedly is due to FRIGHT. It's a well-known, instinctive phenomenon (a bit like jumping on hearing a very loud noise). Getting up and seeing someone rifling through your cash box is SHOCK, and that can cause a temporary freeze. I hope it's clear to everyone else, the Accomplice theory is not "almost impossible". You truly believe Wallace is innocent, Parry made the call, an unknown accomplice enters through the front door etc like Accomplice BUT you consider a theory whereby Wallace is guilty and Wallace made the call etc is more likely than Accomplice. I suspect this makes as little sense to others as it does me.

And, of course, problems confront Accomplice Plus and Accomplice alike. For instance, why did the accomplice neatly fold the burnt mackintosh and place it under Julia's shoulder? And, even though it was barely recognisable as a mackintosh, Wallace recognised not only as a mackintosh but also identified it as his? I mention this point on p. 62, Move to Murder. See also Sydney Scholefield-Allen in the police files.

I have made the points I wanted. I shall return to humble posting retirement, but good luck with your new site.

AMB

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes, good points about the suspect pool and Chess fixtures. I think the most important thing about Close is that, to be an alibi at all, he's got to hope he notes the time with some accuracy; but why would he do that, considering he didn't even have a watch?

Regarding the iron bar. He could have wrapped it in cloth, but that just creates additional problems, i.e. if that's what happened then we have both the murder weapon and the blood stained cloth unaccounted for.

Regarding the cloth, it would simply be chucked into the fire. Anything like newspaper, cloth, would be so trivial to destroy entirely. And then the blunt weapon needn't be removed from the house at all.

I hadn't considered the reliance on Close to be accurate with his time, very good suggestion.

I agree about the jacket. Plus if we imagine he is purposefully putting it into the flames, and taking it out, then he's putting his hand into fire or a flaming mackintosh to remove it - which seems like a lot of effort to conserve something that will blatantly incriminate you.

What's more, there's a perfectly good kitchen stove which would have incinerated it with absolute ease.

Again though we can't know the thought processes in people's mind and he might have just overlooked these things.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH!

I see you completely evade the point about the strawman.

Julia screaming when Cadwallader entered the room unexpectedly is due to FRIGHT. It's a well-known, instinctive phenomenon (a bit like jumping on hearing a very loud noise). Getting up and seeing someone rifling through your cash box is SHOCK, and that can cause a temporary freeze. I hope it's clear to everyone else, the Accomplice theory is not "almost impossible". You truly believe Wallace is innocent, Parry made the call, an unknown accomplice enters through the front door etc like Accomplice BUT you consider a theory whereby Wallace is guilty and Wallace made the call etc is more likely than Accomplice. I suspect this makes as little sense to others as it does me.

And, of course, problems confront Accomplice Plus and Accomplice alike. For instance, why did the accomplice neatly fold the burnt mackintosh and place it under Julia's shoulder? And, even though it was barely recognisable as a mackintosh, Wallace recognised not only as a mackintosh but also identified it as his? I mention this point on p. 62, Move to Murder. See also Sydney Scholefield-Allen in the police files.

I have made the points I wanted. I shall return to humble posting retirement, but good luck with your new site.

AMB

I didn't evade it, I explained in depth why I think it's impossible here and on the article I wrote. Of course you can disagree but what I feel is impossible is as I said:

Julia encountering a burglar, then either going into the parlour of her own accord or being dragged in there, with no real signs of any struggle or defensive wounds (a bruise on the arm - not even proven to be related to the crime)... Furniture unmoved... Julia is apparently quite content to let this dangerous man grab her and drag her into a parlour and force her down onto a chair, where she then allows him to smash her head in with some sort of blunt instrument - evidently without raising her arm to defend herself.

WHY would a burglar who has decided to murder this woman drag her into a parlour and shove her down onto a chair? Literally WHY? Why doesn't he bash her over the head in the hallway as she goes to flee, or even in the kitchen? There is legitimately no conceivable reason I can see.

What we have to believe for your book's presentation to work is that Julia is totally paralyzed by fear and does not make a sound. Then, when grabbed, still, she does not make any kind of cry... Now, with this ruffian manhandling her violently and mute with fear, she seemingly MAKES NO STRUGGLE AT ALL and makes NO attempt to fight as he drags her into the parlour. She's not struggling at all, no furniture is displaced by a struggle, no other marks apart from that single bruise.

Then after he shoves her down on the chair for NO REASON at all, he uses his other hand (I suppose one is still holding her arm) to pick up some sort of weapon - Julia sees him grab something since she's looking right at him, he raises it up: She then STILL remains mute and LETS him smash her over the head with it without even attempting to put her arm up and defend herself from the blow.

I'm sure you see what I'm saying? This is what I mean by near impossible. I don't think that can happen, I don't think you can believe it can.

It's legit not bias. I was marginally unhappy I was referred to negatively while sharing ideas, but I have legitimately said the exact same thing regarding the accomplice theory from day one. I have even told Rod his idea is impossible and he should consider two people or that the killing was planned as a prelude to a robbery.

Also in absolutely no scenario did anyone neatly fold a mackintosh and shove it under Julia's body - for one thing it wasn't neatly folded. But moreso clearly the burning mackintosh was stamped out on the rug and Julia dragged on top of it (or something LIKE that, anything where the body naturally ends up on top of it).

[John G]

Regarding the cloth, it would simply be chucked into the fire. Anything like newspaper, cloth, would be so trivial to destroy entirely. And then the blunt weapon needn't be removed from the house at all.

I hadn't considered the reliance on Close to be accurate with his time, very good suggestion.

I agree about the jacket. Plus if we imagine he is purposefully putting it into the flames, and taking it out, then he's putting his hand into fire or a flaming mackintosh to remove it - which seems like a lot of effort to conserve something that will blatantly incriminate you.

What's more, there's a perfectly good kitchen stove which would have incinerated it with absolute ease.

Again though we can't know the thought processes in people's mind and he might have just overlooked these things.

Yes, but if he puts the blood stained cloth into the fire he would have to handle it, thus getting blood on his hands. Good point about using the stove to incinerate the coat. Again, from the perspective of Wallace being the killer, we would have to assume that Wallace, the criminal mastermind, made another mistake.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So what do we have here?

A thief that killed Julia on the spur and would therefore have taken no precaution against blood spatter and yet he still doesn’t get a speck of blood outside of the Parlour.

A thief that, after discovering a paltry haul in the cash box, doesn’t even take a minute to rifle through the drawers or even search Julia’s bag.

A thief, unprepared for murder and so using a weapon from the scene, decides to take it away with him as a souvenir. Wipe it on Julia’s skirt, bury it in the ashes in the grate. No DNA in 1931.

We have an assumption that 4 witnesses lied (2 of whom were visitors to the house.)

We have a backdoor that decides not to work for the first time ever on the very night that Julia is murdered and William admits that he’d felt that someone ‘might’ have been inside.

We have Parkes. Surely the most unbelievable piece of testimony in the history of British crime?

We have Julia with a mackintosh over her shoulders because she’s cold. 1. Why didn’t she do the same when she walked to the gate with William? 2. Why didn’t she just wear her own coat which would have been hanging next to Williams? 3. She couldn’t have mistaken them because she didn’t own a mackintosh plus the mackintosh got wet in the afternoon so it may still have been damp. And finally 4. Not one single person has come up with a remotely plausible suggestion for how the mackintosh came to be bunched up beneath Julia’s body. How did the coat get from on her back to being bunched up beneath a woman who was found on her front? It was put there deliberately and it could only have been by William.

We have a story of Parry’s family trying to spirit him away despite the fact that he was completely in the clear.

We have thieves/killers pointlessly turning off the lights for absolutely no benefit. Except to Wallace.

We have a very lucky man who knocks at the door of number 29 and has a short conversation with Julia and yet no one sees or hears anything (the Holme’s heard Close knock earlier in the day and the Johnston’s heard Wallace knock the backdoor just with his hand.)

We have the reserved, retiring Julia alone in the house after dark letting in a complete stranger (because we know that it couldn’t have been Parry.)

We have Wallace lying to Beattie and Caird about being cleared by the police.

We have a phone call from a box at almost the exact time that Wallace would have reached it had he gone in that direction. But no, he went the other way walking straight past two stops to get to the one near Belmont Road. Not suspicious behaviour at all

We have Wallace acting as if he searching for the source of the Nile despite going to an area that he’d visited on numerous occasions.

We have Wallace persevering on his goose chase despite being told by two people (one of them a police officer) that there was definitely no MGE.


It’s genuinely baffling to me how anyone can look at this case and not come to the very obvious conclusion. That one suspect stands head and shoulders above the rest. It’s not even close. Wallace is overwhelmingly the likeliest murderer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Also in absolutely no scenario did anyone neatly fold a mackintosh and shove it under Julia's body -

This is vey obviously exactly what happened. WWH you have the opportunity of being the first person ever to explain how a woman with a mackintosh over her shoulders felt onto her from and managed to get the coat bunched up underneath her. It’s impossible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have to add this.

If Wallace wasn’t the killer then it’s unlikely in the extreme for the murder to have been premeditated. If it was unpremeditated and the mackintosh wasn’t used then the killer must have gotten blood on him. This gives us four questions:

1. Do we really believe that the killer left number 29 covered in blood?
2. Why didn’t he take the simple opportunity to clean himself up in the sink (using a towel for eg)?
3. How did he manage to avoid getting blood on the gas jets, doors and door handles?
4. Even if he’d worn gloves/mittens and gotten blood on them are we really to believe that he took them off to leave fingerprints on the gas jets and door handles etc? Lets face it he had no reason for caution.

The absence of blood outside the Parlour (walls, doors, floor, gas jets, door handles, the handle of the gate) points either to someone that cleaned up or rigorously avoided getting covered in blood. There was no evidence of a clean up and a scrupulous effort to avoid blood spatter points to a planned, premeditated murder. It’s not a certainty of course but a murder this vicious usually points to something personal, that emotion was involved.

This is simply looking at the scene logical and without flights of fancy. It points to Wallace as the murderer.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I have to add this.

If Wallace wasn’t the killer then it’s unlikely in the extreme for the murder to have been premeditated. If it was unpremeditated and the mackintosh wasn’t used then the killer must have gotten blood on him. This gives us four questions:

1. Do we really believe that the killer left number 29 covered in blood?
2. Why didn’t he take the simple opportunity to clean himself up in the sink (using a towel for eg)?
3. How did he manage to avoid getting blood on the gas jets, doors and door handles?
4. Even if he’d worn gloves/mittens and gotten blood on them are we really to believe that he took them off to leave fingerprints on the gas jets and door handles etc? Lets face it he had no reason for caution.

The absence of blood outside the Parlour (walls, doors, floor, gas jets, door handles, the handle of the gate) points either to someone that cleaned up or rigorously avoided getting covered in blood. There was no evidence of a clean up and a scrupulous effort to avoid blood spatter points to a planned, premeditated murder. It’s not a certainty of course but a murder this vicious usually points to something personal, that emotion was involved.

This is simply looking at the scene logical and without flights of fancy. It points to Wallace as the murderer.

Good point thanks for bringing this up. Let me ramble a bit with a bunch of musings and theories... My main thought was that the second man would touch things so the killer then wouldn't have to.

It is one of the more difficult things to decipher. But I mean even Wallace would have some on his face if he wore the jacket, shoes (inside them if he was barefoot to kill her, soles if he wasn't), etc. and he would of course have to have worn gloves.

The stranger might not have gloves on because at that point he's not planning to kill her... I would personally imagine he'd wear gloves anyway... I've also seen a suggestion he put them on afterwards though I don't like that theory.

MacFall believes only one hand would be drenched but as we know he's not very reliable, so that's another suggestion I'm not overly keen on.

Of note though... If something from the house was used and then REMOVED I think it suggests either Wallace has planned it poorly (since it would be easy to wrap the thing - he'd have gloves so touching the wrapping is no bother), or an intruder had handled it with bare hands. And if the latter case is accurate it means he DIDN'T have gloves on despite my suspicion, and thus had to remove it because it would have his prints on it...

If he doesn't have gloves some time may have been spent haphazardly wiping things down because of prints before fleeing... Or the suggestion he covered his hands after MIGHT be correct it's just hard for me to envision - I don't much like it.

Same for example, as the second man donating one of his gloves... It's a possible thing but seems convoluted so I wouldn't really suggest it.

If there's NOT a second man in the house I do think the killing may have been part of the plan right from the start.

When leaving Wolverton Street the killer would have blood on him, but it's far less important for this person to be spotless. Wallace has to be completely spotless because he's going to be seen by many people and police etc. without an opportunity to change clothes after he leaves the house.

I assume someone admitted to the home would remove their jacket and leave it in the hallway. After attacking Julia, as they prepare to leave, I'd imagine they would put it back on since they can't leave it there. So they'd have some slight coverage visually... But I do know what you mean... It's going to be on their trousers etc.

There was a suggestion in John Bull that after the first strike the mackintosh could be grabbed and used in follow-up shots. But I like the defence's proposition Julia had it round her shoulders. One accidental burning (which does both Julia's skirt and the jacket) simply makes a little more sense than two.

A lot of prints in the house were smudged and thus unuseable so the potential presence of other prints can't be entirely ruled out. The Zodiac smeared prints on the public phone he used where he was so anxious. Personally I don't think such prints were left though.

Blood in this case has always been a tricky matter. It's not helped at all by the fact MacFall is so unreliable. I think two people or premeditation helps a bit.

---

I'm rambling since I'm just theorizing a bunch of ideas and nothing strikes me as an a-ha type thing. I'm curious to see what others suggest.

When writing the article, I figured the second man touched stuff, that's my main suggestion if there isn't premeditation. ESPECIALLY if the killer was bare-handed which removal of any item from the home would suggest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Personally I think that the mackintosh being found where it was is the nail in William’s coffin. No matter how many times I’ve thought about it or how many different scenario’s I apply I simply cannot see any way that the mackintosh ended up where it did by accident. I’d go so far as to say that it was pretty close to impossible. Even if she’d got it folded up in her arms when she was first struck she’d fallen to the fire grate causing the burning then she was moved. It has to have been put there deliberately.

Personally I don’t think that William wore the jacket. I think that he used it as a shield, in a kneeling position, draped over his left arm with his right arm in one of the sleeves. He then raised his left arm (horizontal from elbow to hand) to just below his eyes. The mackintosh would have shielded him from just below his eyes to the floor. The only exposed area being his head from the eyes up and his right hand. It’s far from impossible that, with a bit of good fortune he didn’t get a drop of blood on him. Remember, Wallace himself tantalisingly suggested that the ‘killer’ might have used the mackintosh as a shield. I think that knew that he did.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you think that Marsden, who was just about to enter a very beneficial marriage, would have risked it all for a third share in the contents of Wallace’s cash box? We can’t assume a connection between the name Qualtrough and Marsden’s client.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Do you think that Marsden, who was just about to enter a very beneficial marriage, would have risked it all for a third share in the contents of Wallace’s cash box? We can’t assume a connection between the name Qualtrough and Marsden’s client.

The mackintosh wasn't put under Julia on purpose, Julia was put on top of the mackintosh. The jacket is stomped out then as you know Julia's body is moved.

If Wallace killed her I do think the John Bull article is an OJ type confession as to how he did it.

But I don't think he did. If he has any involvement I think he had someone else involved. At least for the call as you know I'm close to 100% sure Parry is that man. So at least a Waterhouse solution.

The box SHOULD have had a substantial sum, and who knows if the shares would be equal. I mean if all Gordon's doing is ringing the club then meeting up for his cash, I shouldn't imagine he'd get an equal cut to the men who've gone in to commit the robbery.

I would like to contact Gannon and get more details on Marsden and his engagement. I am positive the name is meant to be the Pru client. It has no other benefit unless it's a practical joke or Wallace wants to frame someone, and the coincidence is quite large - especially given the oddity of the name. If it was like J M Smith and there was a client called J R Smith it'd be easier to accept as coincidence. Qualtrough isn't even a name you'd think exists unless you'd heard it before.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The mackintosh wasn't put under Julia on purpose, Julia was put on top of the mackintosh. The jacket is stomped out then as you know Julia's body is moved.

If Wallace killed her I do think the John Bull article is an OJ type confession as to how he did it.

But I don't think he did. If he has any involvement I think he had someone else involved. At least for the call as you know I'm close to 100% sure Parry is that man. So at least a Waterhouse solution.

The box SHOULD have had a substantial sum, and who knows if the shares would be equal. I mean if all Gordon's doing is ringing the club then meeting up for his cash, I shouldn't imagine he'd get an equal cut to the men who've gone in to commit the robbery.

I would like to contact Gannon and get more details on Marsden and his engagement. I am positive the name is meant to be the Pru client. It has no other benefit unless it's a practical joke or Wallace wants to frame someone, and the coincidence is quite large - especially given the oddity of the name. If it was like J M Smith and there was a client called J R Smith it'd be easier to accept as coincidence. Qualtrough isn't even a name you'd think exists unless you'd heard it before.

But I’m sure that I recall that there was a shop not far away with that name. Someone is more likely to recall a more unusual name.

Everything points to the mackintosh being used. Unless Julia was a closet transvestite why didn’t she simply put on her own coat (probably on the next peg) if she wanted to keep warm (even though she didn’t feel the need when she was actually outside?) The coat was wet when Wallace hung it up so it may even have still been damp hanging in a cold hallway. But she chooses it over her own, completely dry coat.

[WallaceWackedHer]

But I’m sure that I recall that there was a shop not far away with that name. Someone is more likely to recall a more unusual name.

Everything points to the mackintosh being used. Unless Julia was a closet transvestite why didn’t she simply put on her own coat (probably on the next peg) if she wanted to keep warm (even though she didn’t feel the need when she was actually outside?) The coat was wet when Wallace hung it up so it may even have still been damp hanging in a cold hallway. But she chooses it over her own, completely dry coat.

There's a butcher's shop, it's not visible from the phone box (I read that claim once) but I think it's somewhere to the West? I can get the address from Gannon's book.

Still the caller seems to know it's a surname (shop signs usually are, but still), and the similarity FAR too similar to the client's name for me to accept as pure coincidence.

Beyond that it serves no real purpose unless he was trying to frame someone.

As for the jackets, I would have needed a photo of the hallway. My coat rack is pretty damn crowded, I usually can't find my own, sometimes when in a rush to answer the door (e.g. if there's a postman I just grab the first thing I can find). Maybe it was the first thing to hand too... So we need more information to come to a conclusion as to that.

Further, if we're suggesting this is the nail in Wallace's coffin, why would HE not grab a jacket that isn't his own? You see it doesn't really accomplish much except drop him in it.

I dislike relying too much on that type of logic because so many murderers make mistakes - but it would be the obvious thing in a clever scheme.

The dampness of the jacket I considered. It was hung up quite a bit earlier wasn't it? The jacket he went to Menlove Gardens with was also worn on his final insurance rounds so the jacket was hung up after the previous round ended which was... 14:00 to 14:30ish right? So it's had over 4 hours to dry, maybe 5 if the killer came at 7 to 7:30 PM which would be the case if Wallace is innocent. Would want to know how heavy the rain was.

My grandma got into this case now lol. She thinks Wallace probably was a gay man, she said back then gay men would marry women, and ousted gays would be put in prison or given injections etc. My grandad also said that.

But she said she thinks definitely Julia would know...

And that made me wonder if THAT is why nobody went to Julia's wedding and why she was disowned, if they knew she was marrying a gay man. They had no children, MacFall found her to be "virginal"... Though we mustn't forget he said the same about the girl Parry SEEMS to have sexually assaulted so......

I like the suggestion Men Love Gardens was chosen due to Wallace being a gay man. There were other addresses suitable for such a ruse, albeit that only bolsters that theory a TINY bit. I think it's very smart thinking though from the person who said it.