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

[moste]

It would be nice to hear from Anthony ,did the good doctor think to ask ,’purely out of interest’ what was this old lady’s opinion on Wallace’s guilt or innocence ?

[moste]

An interesting snippet from Antony on the Wallace’s relationship. It was emailed to him before Christmas by an NHS Doctor who had read his book.


“I treated Julia Wallace’s old neighbour whose back yard door faced the Wallace’s back yard door, Im assuming she lived in Richmond Park. This lady was in her 80s 20 years ago and was still very bright when I dealt with her. I asked her about the murder and she mentioned that she remembered the police taking the body out of the Wallace’s back yard in a coffin with bright arc lights and a tarpaulin over the back door. The neighbour knew Mrs Wallace however there was quite an age gap between the two of them. They did have a mutual friend whose name was Mrs or Miss Lamb who was younger than Julia but older than the neighbour. Mrs/Miss Lamb would have a coffee with both parties, though separately. Mrs lamb told the neighbour that Julia would often say “I need to get home before William gets home”. The neighbour describes William as a “street angel, house devil”, her words not mine and that Mrs Lamb got the impression that if Julia wasn’t scared of William she was wary of him.”

This should, at the very least, give us pause for thought before blithely accepting that the Wallace’s were Ken and Barbie.

Well that’s a breath of fresh air ,so to speak . And very interesting , If a person says” we heard nothing through the thin walls, that simply means they have nothing to say, and can’t add anything to the argument . Wallace may have been a ‘house devil’ as possibly indicated by a few people. Someone saying ‘ I always thought them a happy couple’ means very little in the big scheme of things, for instance
Always assuming no one is lying, If a hundred people agree ‘they seam so good together’ , but one person maintains they over heard him threatening her with violence , then I would contend, it wouldn’t look good for Wallace.

[WallaceWackedHer]

What I also find strange is the OJ Simpson parallel. Because he also just had one single glove found on his persons, right?

He's never confessed so I have no idea what the reason for it was. But it's a weird similarity there.

[WallaceWackedHer]

When I told Josh this he seemed to think it was noteworthy. So maybe I should mention it here...

While I was researching burglaries and housebreakers around that time in Liverpool, I saw that the police had caught men with housebreaking kits, and they included only one glove.

I guess he thinks that's a significant thing because of the Parkes mitten, and yes, it was neglectful of me to not mention it, but I did not really grasp the importance.

It just seemed bizarre to me, a single glove. I guess the reason perhaps, why it could potentially be beneficial to those burglars, is that it's easier to pick things up without gloves on... So I suppose they use their bare hand to do the fine work and looting, and the gloved hand to touch any surface where they feel fingerprints could be left.

But still it's so peculiar, why would they not just have two and then take one off to loot stuff? I mean the cops were busting people with singular gloves so I'm sure there's a good reason for it.

[WallaceWackedHer]

An interesting snippet from Antony on the Wallace’s relationship. It was emailed to him before Christmas by an NHS Doctor who had read his book.


“I treated Julia Wallace’s old neighbour whose back yard door faced the Wallace’s back yard door, Im assuming she lived in Richmond Park. This lady was in her 80s 20 years ago and was still very bright when I dealt with her. I asked her about the murder and she mentioned that she remembered the police taking the body out of the Wallace’s back yard in a coffin with bright arc lights and a tarpaulin over the back door. The neighbour knew Mrs Wallace however there was quite an age gap between the two of them. They did have a mutual friend whose name was Mrs or Miss Lamb who was younger than Julia but older than the neighbour. Mrs/Miss Lamb would have a coffee with both parties, though separately. Mrs lamb told the neighbour that Julia would often say “I need to get home before William gets home”. The neighbour describes William as a “street angel, house devil”, her words not mine and that Mrs Lamb got the impression that if Julia wasn’t scared of William she was wary of him.”

This should, at the very least, give us pause for thought before blithely accepting that the Wallace’s were Ken and Barbie.

Yes I can imagine that. I'd more easily buy that he's a domineering and abusive force. The reasons for her death could then be quite different in terms of motive. More to do with control or the lack of it, as opposed to harboring seething rage over the years.

I also felt perhaps his "wife's" rigid rule to not admit strangers was really his own rule that he forced upon her.

Then I'd feel inclined to think again that it was some sort of recent thing that went down.

[moste]

The newsagents was on Allerton Road, Moste, not Menlove Avenue.

Quite right. Thanks for that.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I’m sorry WWH but you really cannot be serious on this point!

Wallace said that the door was definitely bolted. This is an undeniable fact.

Williams could hear the sounds of the lock from where he was outside the door and his testimony dovetails with Mr Johnston saying that she fumbled with the lock. So he heard everything perfectly well and described it.

Mr Johnston explains specifically why she fumbled with the lock and it wasn’t because the door was bolted. She was nervous not blind.

Williams was absolutely certain that there was no sound of the bolt being drawn. He didn’t say that it was possible that he might not have heard it because it wasn’t. He heard Mrs Johnston fumbling with it.

And so we can be just about as sure as we can be that Wallace lied.

If he lied then he’s guilty. No question.

How can anyone just brush this aside?

That's the point though, that they couldn't say for sure. They couldn't prove he lied.

But ask yourself, William had been into the house while the Johnston's waited outside. If he thought it was this vital the door should be bolted, he could have done it... It would have to be an oversight you see?

And combined with them not being able to say he wasn't telling the truth, it seems likely he was.

Unless it was an oversight which is of course possible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

An interesting snippet from Antony on the Wallace’s relationship. It was emailed to him before Christmas by an NHS Doctor who had read his book.


“I treated Julia Wallace’s old neighbour whose back yard door faced the Wallace’s back yard door, Im assuming she lived in Richmond Park. This lady was in her 80s 20 years ago and was still very bright when I dealt with her. I asked her about the murder and she mentioned that she remembered the police taking the body out of the Wallace’s back yard in a coffin with bright arc lights and a tarpaulin over the back door. The neighbour knew Mrs Wallace however there was quite an age gap between the two of them. They did have a mutual friend whose name was Mrs or Miss Lamb who was younger than Julia but older than the neighbour. Mrs/Miss Lamb would have a coffee with both parties, though separately. Mrs lamb told the neighbour that Julia would often say “I need to get home before William gets home”. The neighbour describes William as a “street angel, house devil”, her words not mine and that Mrs Lamb got the impression that if Julia wasn’t scared of William she was wary of him.”

This should, at the very least, give us pause for thought before blithely accepting that the Wallace’s were Ken and Barbie.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This isn't a confirmed lie whatsoever. Like, not by any stretch... William himself as the killer, if he felt it was so important it be bolted he had ample opportunity when he went into the house alone to draw it, or even before leaving on his journey.

It's likely he's telling the truth unless he totally forgot about this point.

I’m sorry WWH but you really cannot be serious on this point!

Wallace said that the door was definitely bolted. This is an undeniable fact.

Williams could hear the sounds of the lock from where he was outside the door and his testimony dovetails with Mr Johnston saying that she fumbled with the lock. So he heard everything perfectly well and described it.

Mr Johnston explains specifically why she fumbled with the lock and it wasn’t because the door was bolted. She was nervous not blind.

Williams was absolutely certain that there was no sound of the bolt being drawn. He didn’t say that it was possible that he might not have heard it because it wasn’t. He heard Mrs Johnston fumbling with it.

And so we can be just about as sure as we can be that Wallace lied.

If he lied then he’s guilty. No question.

How can anyone just brush this aside?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Absolutely no way, HS.

And all the available evidence suggests that it would have been a good few minutes after 8.00 pm that Wallace would have boarded that first tram on his journey back to Wolverton Street.

Wallace puts himself on the tram at 8 PM. I know the others like the newsagent reckon he was there much later.

Do we have any definite answer? Because it calls into question Lily Hall's sighting, that maybe she was mistaken, since the time of her sighting would then be too early right?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Absolutely no way, HS.

And all the available evidence suggests that it would have been a good few minutes after 8.00 pm that Wallace would have boarded that first tram on his journey back to Wolverton Street.

Thanks for that Sherlock

[WallaceWackedHer]

Also on the point of Williams that's not a good person to mention, because he said late in life that Wallace was completely innocent.

Slemen believed he meant he knew the Johnstons did it. I thought maybe it was some of Slemen's nonsense but in fact when it comes to this particular case, I've not been able to dispute any of his claims at all, and this was corroborated again as I saw it mentioned in Goodman's book.

[WallaceWackedHer]

You appear to prefer rumours of gayness or toy boys which I really can’t understand.

On the issue of whether the front door was bolted or not.

From Hemmerde’s cross examination of PC Williams

Hemmerde: What happened?


Williams: After a few seconds of fumbling by someone inside the door was opened by the accused.....


Hemmerde: While the fumbling was on did you or did you nor hear the bolt being drawn?


Williams: I did not.


The ‘fumbling’ was done by Mrs Johnston who tried opening the door but couldn’t manage the lock. She stated to Walsh at the trial that it was because it was different type of lock to her own combined with the fact that she was agitated. Not because it was bolted. And so we have PC Williams standing close enough to the door to easily hear the fumbling and yet he hears no bolt being drawn!

He could hear the movements of the lock but he heard fumbling (Mrs Johnston) then Wallace opens the door. No sound of a door being unbolted. William’s has no doubt.

Another lie from William.

How many can he get away with?

This isn't a confirmed lie whatsoever. Like, not by any stretch... William himself as the killer, if he felt it was so important it be bolted he had ample opportunity when he went into the house alone to draw it, or even before leaving on his journey.

It's likely he's telling the truth unless he totally forgot about this point.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I’ve explained this. This isn’t settled by numbers. If 10 people say 1 thing and 3 people say another it isn’t axiomatic that the 10 are correct. Why are the Wallace’s the only couple in history that couldn’t have concealed any unhappiness? It’s not a remotely reasonable proposition. They hardly had a massive circle of friends did they? The Johnston’s had been in the house three times but had never seen the Wallace’s at home together.

It's on probability. The odds 10 people are right as opposed to 3 is greater. Especially important would be the neighbour's testimony considering it's a terraced house and arguments are very obvious. The doctor etc. didn't even say they argued etc. just that they appeared callous about the other's health... It's legitimately just playing the odds here. It could of course be that they concealed an unhappy marriage, but the evidence supports the opposite view with quite a bit more conviction.

Very strong are the diary entries shortly before Julia's death, and until Wallace's death. One entry before her death is corroborated as fact (where he's worried she returned home late). That's starting to stretch probability a touch because of the amount of things which have then been done, given an obvious attempt to frame Parry/Marsden amongst other factors.

So that's why I think it was something that suddenly happened if he's involved. The gay rumour isn't something I go for because I like the idea, it's because the statement about it was so specific and odd, that it seems genuine. The guy said his own dad was gay with Wallace before moving to America lol. If Julia had recently found out about something like this then it could lead to a need to kill her.

Also a need for others to participate potentially, because homosexuality was actually a CRIME back then. You could go to prison for it.

My nan's first question after reading my article on the murder (not my solution article, the murder one, where it doesn't mention gayness AFAIK) was: "Is he a gay man?" Lol.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Parry has a rock solid, unshakable alibi. He’s gone.

Gone from what? From being the killer? That is exactly what I said in regards to his wrongful exoneration. For the police, not killer = not involved.

The police literally have an eyewitness say she saw Wallace speak to a man that he denies talking to just before he gets back into his house. But everyone is soooo sure he must have done it alone.

Because it makes for a better story? Because it's a flawed assumption logically as you can see...

Parry is involved in this in some way and he placed the call. I don't think he expected Julia would end up dead, that's including if Wallace is the guilty party - I think in such case, Parry was tricked.

As to what happened in that case, I think the men met at the T junction at Breck Road. Parry went right in his car, Wallace left to the tram.