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

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

. You know full well nobody says Parry killed the woman, and full well what he's accused of is placing the call.

Goodman and Wilkes both do. A percentage of the voters on ColdCaseJury do.

No efforts are made on William's behalf, society disowned him completely and 99.9% of the world's population apart from Johnathan Goodman just assumed that because he just BARELY could have done it then he obviously did.

Im not talking about people at the time. I’m saying that there’s a tendency when looking at the case to excuse or dismiss.

I have to ask are you related to Parry? Because trying to claim he mixed up his days, even though William's guilt and Parry's involvement aren't mutually exclusive, is strange.

Ive simply said that it’s possible that he was mistaken. People usually need a reason to lie and Parry had no good reason to do so. And when people give a knowingly false alibi they usually believe that it won’t get found out (until the cctv footage appears, or the unknown witness etc) And yet Parry, with three days to come up with something, gives an alibi that even a toddler would have known would have been found out.

There’s simply nothing wrong with this thinking as opposed to thinking “well we know that he was guilty so it was obviously a lie.”

I don't concern myself with him asking people where the address is and such. It's not relevant. It's behavior that looks condemning in retrospect BECAUSE of what happened after. He is a stranger in the area. He knows Crewe's house/Green Lane, the cinema, and Calderstones park. That's it. We know this guy is a recluse.

Wallace isn’t a recluse. Chess club, violin lessons, visits to Calderstones Park, lectures at the college, every day walking around as part of his job. He wasn’t Keith Richards but he wasn’t a recluse.

Saying that it’s not relevant is another example of dismissing the inconvenient. Wallace lied. He wasn’t a complete stranger in the area and more to the point he knew very well how to get to his destination because he’d used the very same tram numerous times. It’s a charade and quite an obvious one.

The viciousness of 3 to 12 strikes, good job McFall! It's not even uncommon in other murders where the person did not know the killer if you look at crimes at the time. It means nothing.

And I’ve never claimed that it was anything like a clincher. It’s a very minor point but it gives us a possible statical pointer.

I know the type of logic you employ and I don't think it's a good way to work things out but to employ the same: You think this man relying on being able to leave his house without even the tiniest drop of blood on him is going to hit her 12 times? And not do the mega obvious thing of chucking a covering over her head?

In actual fact I think it entirely likely that Wallace might have expected to have got at least some blood on him (the top half of his head; his hand etc) If he had done so then there would have been absolutely no issue for him to have washed in the back kitchen sink. Any blood seen by the police might easily have been explained as a thief/killer washing his hands before he went out.

The lights, definite faulty logic there. Nobody loitering the home is leaving them on. And to be honest I'd feel safer rushing out of a dark house than one with lights on. Just sayin'. But more importantly again: nobody loitering the home is leaving them on.

Sorry but that simply isn’t the case. There is no evidence that anyone loitered around after Julia’s death. Indeed that lack of any evidence of a robbery would strongly suggest that, if she was killed because she’d disturbed a robbery, then her killer fled the scene almost immediately and via the back door. Turning of the lights would have been an utterly pointless waste of time and effort. But not for William though. The lights being out strongly point to William without a shadow of a doubt.

The front door bolt was never proven to be a lie.

Very little in this case is conclusively proven but the testimony of PC Williams and Florence Johnston suggest very forcefully that the door wasn’t bolted. Viewed as it stands anyone seeing this would accept that strong likelihood. And if the door wasn’t bolted then William is the murderer.

. What it is, is that you decided over a decade ago that the guy's guilty and the police and prosecution are right, and that's it.

I thought he was too. But nah, he's not. Well - definitely he's not guilty alone

So yet again my opinions are dishonest?!

For a start I’ve only been interested in this case since I joined Casebook in 2017.

What I’ve done is looked at what we know over and over and over again. I’ve read the case for and the cases against and I’m quite capable of forming an honestly arrived at opinion and I’m as likely to be as right or wrong as the next person. It’s not an isolated one either. Unless Josh has changed his mind recently (and he may have and if he had then I would have no issue with that) he has always very strongly favoured Wallace. Caz is very knowledgeable on the case and she favours Wallace (although perhaps not as strongly as I do) Moste and Ven both favour Wallace as does Etenguy and Abby I think? On the ColdCaseJury site (and despite the book favouring the Accomplice theory) more people voted for Wallace alone than any other suspect/solution. Noted crime historian and expert Stewart Evans (a very respected man on Casebook and elsewhere; and a man who was a friend of Goodman) believes Wallace to have been guilt. Authors/researchers Murphy and Bartle believed Wallace to have been guilty. Antony accepts the possibility that Wallace might have been guilty. So I’m hardly proposing any kind of wacky, out-there theory. The fact that I’ve consistently favoured Wallace means that I haven’t seen a scintilla of evidence that puts a dent in the theory. And let’s be honest, a few months ago you were absolutely convinced that the Johnston’s were involved. You’ve also theorised about the Anfield Housebreaker suggesting that the crime scene strongly pointed to him (and even that he might have been Johnston.) You've also at times appeared to strongly favour an Amy connection. And that Wallace was involved in a sado-masochistic relationship. Or that he was gay. None of these are based upon anything but rumour. I stick to what’s know yet you persist in saying that my opinions aren’t honestly arrived at.

You’ve done a great job in re-igniting and maintaining interest in the case. You are to be commended for the excellent resource that is you r Wallace website. But the last thing that I want is that another Wallace thread descends into the bad old days of you-know-who. The days when opinions were stated as fact. It’s now becoming too frustrating to post when glaringly obvious points are dismissed. I don’t mind at all anyone disputing Wallace as a suspect or proposing alternatives but there really is no point in continuing when a) it’s repeatedly stated or insinuated that my opinions haven’t been arrived at honestly, or b) it’s stated that Wallace alone has been disproven when it so very obviously hasn’t. I’ll say again that he’s the strongest suspect by an absolute mile. He’s not definitely guilty, but no one comes remotely close as a suspect.

[caz]

Parry doesn't need to know what he's ringing for. After the deed is done, he's now essentially an accomplice to murder and would be terrified to come forward. Same in a robbery scenario, I don't think he wanted Julia killed - the plan is to keep her busy while things are looted and the thugs leave with her none the wiser. I don't think he for a second thinks these people will beat her to death, I also don't think he's the "ringleader" in any case, I think he's an upper class drama-club boy trying to pretend he's a gangster who's in desperate need of money.

Intuitively although it makes less sense, I feel like a person such as Marsden was the one who came and was admitted by Julia, and that he's the killer.

If you're saying there's no way the two could have been in on it together then that's strong for innocence, because for Parry to have no involvement you have to ignore a fake alibi with a match on timing, and call John Parkes not only an exaggerator but complete liar.

Hi WWH,

Isn't that a contradiction? If Parry was terrified to come forward, because he'd now be an accomplice to murder, what the hell does that do to the [belated and highly questionable] account given by Parkes? Would Parry not have been equally terrified that Parkes would come forward and promptly drop him fairly and squarely in the you know what? He'd have been insane to gamble on Parkes not doing so, or coming forward and then not being taken seriously.

What I was saying is that I can't see Wallace being 'in on it' with anyone else. I can't comment further on pairs of suspects IF Wallace was innocent. I described the only scenario that struck me as theoretically possible: Parry making the call on the Monday, to prepare the way for a thug or two of his acquaintance to enter the house on the Tuesday in Wallace's absence. But Parry would have had no control over Julia's safety in those circumstances, much less been able to predict that she'd be 'none the wiser'! You seem to be moulding Parry's personality and thinking to fit your speculation.

Johnston asked Wallace how much money had been taken, Wallace didn't volunteer it.

So if our neighbour joined my husband and found me dead on the floor of Brown Towers, and then asked how much money was missing, I'm supposed to think it reasonable that hubby would meekly check and report the figure, rather than saying "I really couldn't give a flying one right now. My wife is lying there with her skull caved in, man!" Come on, WWH, that's simply ridiculous.

What you're saying about Close doesn't make sense. Apparently he's trying to beat the clock, if Alan is the only person to corroborate that Julia wasn't dead by 10 past 6 he has no alibi if Close doesn't come forward. He doesn't need to say "Alan came at ___" he just has to say, when asked who was the last person to see Julia alive, that it might have been the milk boy.

No, what I was saying is that all Wallace knew was that the milk boy would be knocking on the door at some point. IF Wallace killed Julia, he had to wait until Close had left, or risk the lad knocking while the murder was taking place or shortly afterwards. If he didn't bring up the milk delivery when being quizzed by the police, there must have been a reason. IF guilty, was it a case of "least said, soonest mended", because he knew how much time had passed between Close's departure and his own, and it had enabled him to do the deed and get out of the house on time - just. However, if he had been innocent, he would surely have remembered it IF the boy had seen Julia alive just moments before she had seen Wallace off, which was "at a quarter to seven". So why would he have failed to say so, knowing his life could soon depend on it? My answer is that Close didn't see Julia just moments before Wallace left the house, but a good ten minutes or more, thus giving a guilty man the opportunity to kill his wife uninterrupted, or causing an innocent one to forget all about the milk by the time he was ready to leave for his business trip.

Love,

Caz
X

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi Darryl,

My apologies for missing your post. Move To Murder is one of the 5 books I’d say that anyone interested in the case should get along with Goodman, Wilkes, Murphy and Gannon. It looks at the main theories and analyses the likelihood then Antony gives his preference. I disagree with his preferred solution but that’s no issue. I’d also recommend the other books in the series too

Wilkes book is kinda meh really. Might as well just listen to Radio City... Bit of a waste of money.

Antony's book makes it impossible to tell fact from fiction.

Goodman and Murphy are biased and sharpen and level but are good.

Dorothy L. Sayers' write up is really good tbh. She makes many of the same points it's taken amateur sleuths like me decades to come up with. I mean she mentions the same exact things we're discussing now with the same exact points. Smart woman. And there's contemporary info since she lived around that era.

Move to Murder is a good book in the sense that the timings etc. are accurate, and I think it recounts the story well until the recreations which could confuse a casual reader (you'll be like "wait, is that artistic license or fact?").

Lustgarten's chapter on the case is really good IIRC.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, I have just purchased the move to murder book on the Wallace case [not arrived yet]. How would you rate it ?
Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

My apologies for missing your post. Move To Murder is one of the 5 books I’d say that anyone interested in the case should get along with Goodman, Wilkes, Murphy and Gannon. It looks at the main theories and analyses the likelihood then Antony gives his preference. I disagree with his preferred solution but that’s no issue. I’d also recommend the other books in the series too

[WallaceWackedHer]

I don’t think that any murder suspect in the history of crime has ever had such efforts done on his behalf. It genuinely baffles me. I used to ask Rod “are you related to William?” because I could never understand, and still can’t, understand the exertions on his part. It’s staggering. Every aspect of this case points to a guilty Wallace. Statistics point more to William. The viciousness points more to William. His lies about being a stranger to the area scream William. The ludicrous persistence on a journey that 24 hours earlier he wasn’t bothered about points to William. The lack of blood outside the Parlour speaks of a caution that only William would need to employ. The lights being off categorically point to William. The evidence of the front door bolt points to a lie by William and therefore his guilt. William’s reluctance to admit that he’d ‘felt’ that someone was in the room points to William. A phone call made at just the time that William would have passed the box. The most obviously staged robbery ever! And there’s more..

Yet despite this Mount Everest we still bend over backwards to try and involve a man for whom there’s not a smidgeon of real evidence of his involvement. This man has a cast-iron alibi and so, in an attempt to shoehorn him into the frame because dodgy Parry ‘must’ have been guilty, we construct scenarios where he might have been the mastermind. And all this time the blinkers are firmly put in place as far as William is concerned.

To be honest, frustration is setting in with me on this case. In any other case a suspect with so much against him would have meant the case being considered all but solved. It’s not even close. Wallace is miles and miles and miles ahead of any other suspects. In actual fact there are no other suspects because we cannot place anyone else at or near to the crime scene but this is not considered Important for some reason. I can’t see a scintilla of evidence for anyone else. There’s not a single fact that can discount Wallace.

You know full well nobody says Parry killed the woman, and full well what he's accused of is placing the call.

No efforts are made on William's behalf, society disowned him completely and 99.9% of the world's population apart from Johnathan Goodman just assumed that because he just BARELY could have done it then he obviously did.

I have to ask are you related to Parry? Because trying to claim he mixed up his days, even though William's guilt and Parry's involvement aren't mutually exclusive, is strange.

I don't concern myself with him asking people where the address is and such. It's not relevant. It's behavior that looks condemning in retrospect BECAUSE of what happened after. He is a stranger in the area. He knows Crewe's house/Green Lane, the cinema, and Calderstones park. That's it. We know this guy is a recluse.

The viciousness of 3 to 12 strikes, good job McFall! It's not even uncommon in other murders where the person did not know the killer if you look at crimes at the time. It means nothing.

I know the type of logic you employ and I don't think it's a good way to work things out but to employ the same: You think this man relying on being able to leave his house without even the tiniest drop of blood on him is going to hit her 12 times? And not do the mega obvious thing of chucking a covering over her head?

The lights, definite faulty logic there. Nobody loitering the home is leaving them on. And to be honest I'd feel safer rushing out of a dark house than one with lights on. Just sayin'. But more importantly again: nobody loitering the home is leaving them on.

The front door bolt was never proven to be a lie.

What it is, is that you decided over a decade ago that the guy's guilty and the police and prosecution are right, and that's it.

I thought he was too. But nah, he's not. Well - definitely he's not guilty alone.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Not with those thick, heavy Edwardian curtains which would have completely blocked out the lights as they did at the back.

But I thought you said the lights going off would show people nobody's home? I mean I thought the same but again it's not something to chance in my view.

A little crack and light is visible? It's so not worth it...

All he has to do, is pretend he himself is going to light them while Julia goes to the fireplace. Then he can kill her in total darkness, and use the same matches for a source of light.

Anyone would put them out I think, and anyone even William would chuck the bolt/safety catch on the door. It's again a matter of whether someone is actually likely to calculate the minimum amount of things they should do to protect themselves, or just make damn sure in every regard.

Personally I think there are multiple people in the home hence the lack of blood outside. I also have proof burglars were bringing changes of boots so that helps... And like, not in just one bizarre isolated incident.

I agree with most of what Sayers says throughout the entire book. Just a few things where I'm like "that's because it's two people". And she says some of the same things as you about the bolt hence her trying to figure out what type of lock and bolt it is.

It's called Anatomy of Murder IIRC. It's really cheap.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t think that any murder suspect in the history of crime has ever had such efforts done on his behalf. It genuinely baffles me. I used to ask Rod “are you related to William?” because I could never understand, and still can’t, understand the exertions on his part. It’s staggering. Every aspect of this case points to a guilty Wallace. Statistics point more to William. The viciousness points more to William. His lies about being a stranger to the area scream William. The ludicrous persistence on a journey that 24 hours earlier he wasn’t bothered about points to William. The lack of blood outside the Parlour speaks of a caution that only William would need to employ. The lights being off categorically point to William. The evidence of the front door bolt points to a lie by William and therefore his guilt. William’s reluctance to admit that he’d ‘felt’ that someone was in the room points to William. A phone call made at just the time that William would have passed the box. The most obviously staged robbery ever! And there’s more..

Yet despite this Mount Everest we still bend over backwards to try and involve a man for whom there’s not a smidgeon of real evidence of his involvement. This man has a cast-iron alibi and so, in an attempt to shoehorn him into the frame because dodgy Parry ‘must’ have been guilty, we construct scenarios where he might have been the mastermind. And all this time the blinkers are firmly put in place as far as William is concerned.

To be honest, frustration is setting in with me on this case. In any other case a suspect with so much against him would have meant the case being considered all but solved. It’s not even close. Wallace is miles and miles and miles ahead of any other suspects. In actual fact there are no other suspects because we cannot place anyone else at or near to the crime scene but this is not considered Important for some reason. I can’t see a scintilla of evidence for anyone else. There’s not a single fact that can discount Wallace.

[Herlock Sholmes]

First of all, Wallace himself would never have put them on unless he's idiotic... Any of the many delivery people passing by outside may have seen some light escaping the parlour window, and thus be able to testify the parlour was set up before 18:50 PM. He would never put them on, so wouldn't have to turn them down.

Not with those thick, heavy Edwardian curtains which would have completely blocked out the lights as they did at the back.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Btw because I neglected to follow up on the lights I explained the matter before.

First of all, Wallace himself would never have put them on unless he's idiotic... Any of the many delivery people passing by outside may have seen some light escaping the parlour window, and thus be able to testify the parlour was set up before 18:50 PM. He would never put them on, so wouldn't have to turn them down.

Second of all, if anyone is loitering around in the house, perhaps freaking out with a buddy (/buddies) about wtf they're going to do or trying to make sure they left no clues behind, then the door would be bolted (BOTH doors) and the lights turned off. The doors would be bolted so they would be alerted when someone got there.

Also if they are escaping, I'd rather run out of a dark house rather than one with a light behind me as I did so.

Nobody takes chances or analyzes things in matters of this nature. They make sure. Someone's mortally wounded? You make SURE they're dead. Staying in the home? You make SURE nobody can get in not analyze mathematically that there's no point. Etc...

I don't actually think there's a good explanation for the jacket except Julia wearing it. I do have reasons for this and I think you will agree. I also think there could be a better explanation that I'm not seeing... I mean that's the point of a forum thread isn't it, so we can put our minds together, and importantly, I get to say utterly retarded ideas that pop into my head and have it confirmes they are in fact retarded.

But anyway the jacket in the case Wallace is guilty:

I don't think the killer wore it: If worn, protection is still not fully adequate or at least couldn't be RELIED upon to be adequate... I think the clear thing would be to dispose of ALLLL clothing you were wearing. There's no point if he's sneaking in when fully naked otherwise.

I don't think the killer used it as a shield: If you imagine how it would be held, I think only the first strike could potentially have it catch light due to proximity... When she's away from the fire, the shield is nowhere near it... Further, there must be at least 101 things in the house, including jackets Julia owned, that could probably serve a similar purpose when we know it's not worn.

I don't think it doused flames: Because the jacket was farrr more heavily burned than the skirt from what I've read. Of course I don't know how flammable the material was etc.

I don't think it wiped weaponry: Because surely again something like Julia's own jacket would be a better bet, or wrapping the weapon in newspaper or anything easy to get rid of by burning... If the police were smart they would've checked if that open Liverpool Echo had any pages missing. Those silly gooses.

So wtf did it do? Lol...

I think the burning implies Julia was wearing it or holding it. It's the only thing that fits... The woman has gone sideways into the fire hasn't she (the skirt was burned on the front but it was determined the front actually should have been to the side).

The jacket's caught blaze. Her skirt is against the grid.

The jacket's been chucked down on the rug and stomped out. Julia's skirt too (if necessary), then Julia's body's been moved which we can prove. And voila she's on top of the jacket.

I wonder if the whole point of moving her so substantially was done FOR the reason she'd cover the jacket. I mean it would be found anyway... Idno. I don't have any idea why she was moved rather than just dragged from the fire. Unless McFall is VERY wrong... A high possibility tbh.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Disproven? How?

Its transparently the most likely solution to the case. In fact I’d say that it was pretty obvious. Even statistics heavily favour William (as does everything else) What has been disproven though is Parry’s guilt. He went nowhere near Wolverton Street that night. We can’t place him at the phone box we can only say that he was the right ‘type’ of person to have made the call (but his involvement is no more likely than William having an unknown accomplice)



The lights are black and white. They point to William and no one else. There is no reasonable explanation for anyone else turning out the lights. And the suggestion that Julia might have sat in a house on her own in darkness is a non-starter.



You appear to be ignoring the trial evidence which absolutely points to the fact that the front door wasn’t bolted and that Wallace lied. It’s in black and white!



The Beattie suggestion is absolutely sound and grounded in reason. Would he have ever been the recipient of a prank call? Unlikely in the extreme. (So nothing wrong with this point.) Were the phones of the ‘30’s of a poorer sound quality than today’s? Yes. (So nothing wrong with this point.) Is it extremely difficult to recreate an unfamiliar voice in your mind that you’d heard for the first and only time days ago? Yes it is. (So nothing wrong with this point.) Was Richard Gordon Parry the only man capable of disguising his voice? No. (So nothing wrong with that point.) Is it also possible that, knowing that he might be implicating Wallace in a capital crime, that Beattie might have exercised extreme caution. He might therefore have been reluctant to have said “well, err, mmm maybe I suppose that it might have sounded very vaguely like Mr Wallace perhaps just a little.” Yes I’d say that it could have been the case. (So there’s nothing wrong with that point.)

Nothing, absolutely nothing eliminates Wallace from making the call and as he’s very obviously the strongest suspect this becomes close to a certainty.



We don’t even have evidence that she answered the door. No one saw or heard anyone at the door and we can add the fact that a conversation would have had to have been had explaining the situation. So neither the Johnston’s or the Holme’s heard the door even though the Holme’s heard the front door earlier and no one heard Julia having a conversation for what, 30 seconds or a minute?, on her front doorstep? Still not impossible that someone came to the door of course but it adds a doubt. Not one person in the street saw a stranger. No neighbour across the road saw or heard anyone.

The idea that Julia put the coat over her shoulders is not impossible but we have to ask, as I did, was it colder inside than out? She didn’t slip a coat over her shoulders to go all the way to the back gate and back. So the use of the mackintosh and the lack of blood tie in. Plus the idea of Julia putting her husbands coat on because it was the first thing that came to hand is utter nonsense.

Honestly, how many lies or examples of dodgy behaviour by William do we need to make excuses for? Even on the one issue of the front door bolt we should have alarm bells screaming in our ears. The trial transcript points to William lying. If he did lie, he’s the murderer.

To excuse William on the issue of the front door bolt we have to say this - that PC Williams hearing was so selective that, from the other side of the door, he could hear Mrs Johnston fumbling with the lock and yet he was completely deaf to the sound of Wallace drawing the bolt (which would in all likelihood have been louder that the fumbling.)

The bolt issue alone raises the likelihood of Wallace’s guilt to 90%.

It's not nonsense I do it all the time when the postey knocks. There might be a better explanation. But for sure it's what I said: Body on top pf jacket, not jacket pushed under body

I mean you seem to like Gladys reconstructing the voice as an older man... Beattie didn't just say it's not his voice, he was emphatic.

The neighbours also didn't hear William leave on his journey or the aound of Julia falling onto the fire etc. I guess they have selective hearing where they can only hear sounds if it helps point to guilt lmao. But tge thuds at 8 20 or w.e. well obv that can't be real.

One person doing this is just wrong....... It didn't happen tgat way sooooo...

[WallaceWackedHer]

On the question of the doors.

Wallace claimed that he couldn’t get in via the back door at his first attempt. The back door certainly wasn’t bolted but we know that the lock was faulty and so we have Wallace, who regularly used the back door, being stymied by this lock for the very first time on the very night that his wife lay dead in the Parlour

Wallace certainly did claim that the front door was bolted though and yet PC Williams, who heard Mrs Johnston fumbling with lock, didn't hear any sound of the bolt being drawn. He heard the fumbling and yet from exactly the same position...no bolt.

Mrs Johnston, who had tried to open the door to PC Williams, stated that she couldn’t open the door because the lock was of a different type to her own and that she was agitated. And not because it was bolted.

Now to the trial....

Hemmerde: Do you remember Inspector Gold asking you whether you thought there was someone in the house when you got back? I think that was page 53. That was when the statement exhibit 42 was taken. Do you remember him asking you if you thought anyone was in the house when you got back, and do you remember your answer?

Wallace: No, I do not.

Hemmerde: “I thought someone was in the house when I went to the door because I could not open it, and I could not open the back door.” Do you remember saying that?

Wallace: No, I do not.

Hemmerde: Do you still think that when you were there you thought that there was someone in the house?

Wallace: No I do not.

Hemmerde: You have given that theory up?

Wallace: Yes.

Hemmerde: Did you ever believe it?

Wallace: I might have done at that moment.

Hemmerde: Did you ever believe that someone was in the house and had unbolted that door there?

Wallace: At that moment I did.

Hemmerde: And then gone out through the front door was that your idea?

Wallace: No.


It’s worth reading this strange passage more than once. At first Wallace apparently cannot recall discussing this issue with Gold or his response to Gold’s question. Then Wallace denies that he’d even thought this at the time. Then, after being pressed by Hemmerde, he admits that he might have believed it at the time. Then he says that he had believed it!

Honest William is all over the place on this one.

Why all the uncertainty on such a relatively unimportant issue as what William might or might not have thought at the time? I think that William’s plan had been upset.......by the arrival of the Johnston’s.

I think that William was hoping to create a scenario in that both doors were locked by the killer inside and that when he heard William at the front door for the second time he escaped. But the Johnston’s threw a spanner in the works by turning up when they did. He could hardly say that the killer escaped by the back door without an answer for the obvious question “why hadn’t the Johnston’s seen him?”

If this is true then obviously Wallace made a mistake by not locking the door when he first went inside but, under the circumstances and with nerves taking effect especially after being flustered by the appearance of the Johnston’s, he forgot. He couldn’t have bolted it with Mrs Johnston there of course so he simply had to lie.

So, we have the ‘coincidence’ of the back door lock. The trial evidence which points to the front door not being bolted despite William saying that it was. Then we have Wallace all forgetful and at sixes and sevens when be cross-examined on the suggestion that he’d felt that the killer was inside the house.

Do we still keep making excuses for Wallace?

Nobody makes excuses that's why all of 10 people think he's innocent. Everyone goes for the elephant in the room. But it doesn't actually fit well without multiple people. Which is funny because a scenario of innocence isn't the best fit without multiple people either.

In fact, the reason I said "disproven" is specifically in reference to solo Wallace, not guilt. I feel the idea has been essentially proven wrong. The alternative of more than one person is overwhelmingly more probable for a rainbow of reasons.

The idea was that they'd left through the back - which would even make more sense because what home lurker is going to want to run out the front onto a street rather than the back into the alleyways. Regardless of what he says, that he had "given the theory up", well if he's innocent his ideas are only marginally better than our own. And I think his idea might have been right. I do think someone might have been in there. It's just that the doors were closed rather than ajar when he went back round there which makes me think he was probably wrong...

I also don't think it's fair to say about nerves suddenly taking effect when the idea is meant to be that he commits this murder so cleanly and perfectly, leaves his house and goes on a trip, speaks to a bunch of people in a rather ordinary manner - all thanks to stoicism. But then suddenly he's all nervous etc. I think that's convenient.

Wallace never said it was the first time ever he couldn't get in at the back door. You're thinking of the front door lock issue...

Dororthy L. Sayers (who thinks William did it) goes a lot into the details of the lock. According to her locks and bolts are a detective novelist's "meat and drink". Here's another curious quote:

"It was a well-known trick of burglars to lure away householders with bogus telephone messages."

I neglected to mention that before, but Sayers is of that era. I couldn't find that information myself but she must have got it from somewhere. I'd summarize her statements on what she can gather about the locks (she's extremely persistent about this matter):

1. The front door was the one by which Wallace was accustomed to let himself in with his own key on returning home at night. From the data furnished in evidence, it seems likely that the lock was an automatic lock, though not of the “Yale” type; but it is clear that no key can have been left in it on the inside, as this would prevent its being opened by another key from without. It may even have been a small mortice-lock, which Wallace would lock after him, removing and carrying away the key. This door also had a bolt, which is not described. It may have been a safety-catch or a small and easily sliding bolt immediately beneath the lock-plate. If it was a stiff, heavy or double bolt, then one suggestion that was made becomes quite incredible, as will be seen. It is really extraordinary that so few details should have been reported about this bolt.

2, The back kitchen door seems to have had a handle, a bolt or bolts, and possibly also a lock. The mechanism of the handle seems to have been stiff and faulty.

3. The back yard door had apparently a latch and a bolt. It is not perfectly clear from the evidence whether it was this door or the back kitchen door which Wallace expected his wife to have bolted after him when he left; he apparently contradicted himself a little about this, but no energetic effort seems to have been made to clear the matter up.

For the record it's one of the best books on the case and it's available on Kindle. I should probably add it to the books section of my site.

She also doesn't seem to be able to figure out from the given facts whether it's a bolt or double doublt, or just a safety catch.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the question of the doors.

Wallace claimed that he couldn’t get in via the back door at his first attempt. The back door certainly wasn’t bolted but we know that the lock was faulty and so we have Wallace, who regularly used the back door, being stymied by this lock for the very first time on the very night that his wife lay dead in the Parlour

Wallace certainly did claim that the front door was bolted though and yet PC Williams, who heard Mrs Johnston fumbling with lock, didn't hear any sound of the bolt being drawn. He heard the fumbling and yet from exactly the same position...no bolt.

Mrs Johnston, who had tried to open the door to PC Williams, stated that she couldn’t open the door because the lock was of a different type to her own and that she was agitated. And not because it was bolted.

Now to the trial....

Hemmerde: Do you remember Inspector Gold asking you whether you thought there was someone in the house when you got back? I think that was page 53. That was when the statement exhibit 42 was taken. Do you remember him asking you if you thought anyone was in the house when you got back, and do you remember your answer?

Wallace: No, I do not.

Hemmerde: “I thought someone was in the house when I went to the door because I could not open it, and I could not open the back door.” Do you remember saying that?

Wallace: No, I do not.

Hemmerde: Do you still think that when you were there you thought that there was someone in the house?

Wallace: No I do not.

Hemmerde: You have given that theory up?

Wallace: Yes.

Hemmerde: Did you ever believe it?

Wallace: I might have done at that moment.

Hemmerde: Did you ever believe that someone was in the house and had unbolted that door there?

Wallace: At that moment I did.

Hemmerde: And then gone out through the front door was that your idea?

Wallace: No.


It’s worth reading this strange passage more than once. At first Wallace apparently cannot recall discussing this issue with Gold or his response to Gold’s question. Then Wallace denies that he’d even thought this at the time. Then, after being pressed by Hemmerde, he admits that he might have believed it at the time. Then he says that he had believed it!

Honest William is all over the place on this one.

Why all the uncertainty on such a relatively unimportant issue as what William might or might not have thought at the time? I think that William’s plan had been upset.......by the arrival of the Johnston’s.

I think that William was hoping to create a scenario in that both doors were locked by the killer inside and that when he heard William at the front door for the second time he escaped. But the Johnston’s threw a spanner in the works by turning up when they did. He could hardly say that the killer escaped by the back door without an answer for the obvious question “why hadn’t the Johnston’s seen him?”

If this is true then obviously Wallace made a mistake by not locking the door when he first went inside but, under the circumstances and with nerves taking effect especially after being flustered by the appearance of the Johnston’s, he forgot. He couldn’t have bolted it with Mrs Johnston there of course so he simply had to lie.

So, we have the ‘coincidence’ of the back door lock. The trial evidence which points to the front door not being bolted despite William saying that it was. Then we have Wallace all forgetful and at sixes and sevens when be cross-examined on the suggestion that he’d felt that the killer was inside the house.

Do we still keep making excuses for Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I mean I agree with the premises, but I think it's been disproven.

Disproven? How?

Its transparently the most likely solution to the case. In fact I’d say that it was pretty obvious. Even statistics heavily favour William (as does everything else) What has been disproven though is Parry’s guilt. He went nowhere near Wolverton Street that night. We can’t place him at the phone box we can only say that he was the right ‘type’ of person to have made the call (but his involvement is no more likely than William having an unknown accomplice)

. Some of the statements aren't really accurate. Especially regarding the lights; well logically the lights would never have been put on by William so he himself needn't turn them off.

The lights are black and white. They point to William and no one else. There is no reasonable explanation for anyone else turning out the lights. And the suggestion that Julia might have sat in a house on her own in darkness is a non-starter.

And of course they'd be put off if anyone had loitered in the house along with the door being bolted too so...

You appear to be ignoring the trial evidence which absolutely points to the fact that the front door wasn’t bolted and that Wallace lied. It’s in black and white!

. Especially the Beattie line about a hoax call being an alien concept which I've heard a fair bit. It's about his opinion when he's been told that it was - for a FACT - a hoax call, and to try to envision the voice being Wallace. It's a hindsight thing so I don't think that's accurate... His perception of the voice is as good as the operators.

The Beattie suggestion is absolutely sound and grounded in reason. Would he have ever been the recipient of a prank call? Unlikely in the extreme. (So nothing wrong with this point.) Were the phones of the ‘30’s of a poorer sound quality than today’s? Yes. (So nothing wrong with this point.) Is it extremely difficult to recreate an unfamiliar voice in your mind that you’d heard for the first and only time days ago? Yes it is. (So nothing wrong with this point.) Was Richard Gordon Parry the only man capable of disguising his voice? No. (So nothing wrong with that point.) Is it also possible that, knowing that he might be implicating Wallace in a capital crime, that Beattie might have exercised extreme caution. He might therefore have been reluctant to have said “well, err, mmm maybe I suppose that it might have sounded very vaguely like Mr Wallace perhaps just a little.” Yes I’d say that it could have been the case. (So there’s nothing wrong with that point.)

Nothing, absolutely nothing eliminates Wallace from making the call and as he’s very obviously the strongest suspect this becomes close to a certainty.

I think it's clear as well exactly how the jacket ended up there... I think it's so obvious Julia was put on top of the jacket, the jacket wasn't put under Julia... It's not like the body was found where it fell.

We don’t even have evidence that she answered the door. No one saw or heard anyone at the door and we can add the fact that a conversation would have had to have been had explaining the situation. So neither the Johnston’s or the Holme’s heard the door even though the Holme’s heard the front door earlier and no one heard Julia having a conversation for what, 30 seconds or a minute?, on her front doorstep? Still not impossible that someone came to the door of course but it adds a doubt. Not one person in the street saw a stranger. No neighbour across the road saw or heard anyone.

The idea that Julia put the coat over her shoulders is not impossible but we have to ask, as I did, was it colder inside than out? She didn’t slip a coat over her shoulders to go all the way to the back gate and back. So the use of the mackintosh and the lack of blood tie in. Plus the idea of Julia putting her husbands coat on because it was the first thing that came to hand is utter nonsense.

Honestly, how many lies or examples of dodgy behaviour by William do we need to make excuses for? Even on the one issue of the front door bolt we should have alarm bells screaming in our ears. The trial transcript points to William lying. If he did lie, he’s the murderer.

To excuse William on the issue of the front door bolt we have to say this - that PC Williams hearing was so selective that, from the other side of the door, he could hear Mrs Johnston fumbling with the lock and yet he was completely deaf to the sound of Wallace drawing the bolt (which would in all likelihood have been louder that the fumbling.)

The bolt issue alone raises the likelihood of Wallace’s guilt to 90%.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Well, I’m getting prepared for the hurling of rotten fruit and vegetables.

This is a link to my piece on the Wallace case. It’s basically my assessment of the case as a whole and the case against William. I haven’t given a complete run down of the story of the two days events because WWH did that very well in his piece and besides, everyone on here knows the story anyway.

Antony asked if I could write an abridged version which he could put it on the ColdCaseJury website so that’s the one that’s visible (around 2450 words) but within the test there’s a link to the full version (11012 words) I hope that you will read the full version. Thanks

http://coldcasejury.com/case03/elephantroom.asp

I mean I agree with the premises, but I think it's been disproven. I am glad you used the correct time for the milk boy, he could have done the crime in 7 minutes from 18:38 to 18:45.

Some of the statements aren't really accurate. Especially regarding the lights; well logically the lights would never have been put on by William so he himself needn't turn them off. And of course they'd be put off if anyone had loitered in the house along with the door being bolted too so...

Especially the Beattie line about a hoax call being an alien concept which I've heard a fair bit. It's about his opinion when he's been told that it was - for a FACT - a hoax call, and to try to envision the voice being Wallace. It's a hindsight thing so I don't think that's accurate... His perception of the voice is as good as the operators.

I think it's clear as well exactly how the jacket ended up there... I think it's so obvious Julia was put on top of the jacket, the jacket wasn't put under Julia... It's not like the body was found where it fell.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Herlock, I have just purchased the move to murder book on the Wallace case [not arrived yet]. How would you rate it ?
Regards Darryl