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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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 ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I see the point you’re making. Maybe he’d intended to bolt it before he left but under time pressure he forgot and when he returned and initially entered the house he didn’t check the door because he hadn’t realised that he’d forgotten to do it. After all, the stairs weren’t near to the door so he’d gone from the kitchen, upstairs and then to the parlour which was away from the door too. It was only when he got to the door to let Williams in that he noticed that he hadn’t locked it.

The main point though is that they could say that he hadn’t unbolted it because Williams couldn’t hear the sound of the bolt being drawn but he hears Mrs Johnston fumbling with the lock perfectly well and Mrs Johnston struggled with the lock but she doesn’t mention the bolt. Ergo it’s extremely unlikely that the door was actually bolted. Therefore it’s very likely that Wallace lied. And if he definitely lied then he’s the murderer. Yes, of course we can’t give this a 100% certainty but this is a very strong point by anyone’s standards.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

A point I’ve raised before is that what if Wallace had somehow discovered Julia’s true age and thus felt that he’d been tricked into marrying her? This might have been the tipping point causing Wallace to re-think his life. We know that he’d had a very serious illness and operation. We know that he didn’t live much longer so it’s possible (maybe even probable) that he suspected that he hadn’t got much of a life expectancy? What did he have to look forward to if say, the marriage was a sterile, loveless one? No rows or fights just a drab existence punctuated by regular periods of nursing Julia. A woman who’d shaved a massive 16 years off her age possibly just to encourage/trick William into marrying her? Murders have been committed for much less as we all know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Yup, it’s difficult to come up with a sensible reason for carrying one glove. To be honest it’s difficult to come up with any reason.

As an aside, I do recall Gannon suggesting that a dark shape that can be seen on the Wallace’s sideboard might have been the other mitten. I remember thinking “really? Are you really calling this a sensible suggestion?” Accepted that the police attending the scene were hardly Sherlock Holmes, Columbo and Inspector Morse but I’m certain they’d have noticed that both William and Julia had two arms and at least picked up on a single mitten at the crime scene.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I'm afraid that the evidence, viewed as a whole and connected, shows that he most probably did.

No actually it's the opposite (I know this is an older post but I just came across it while rereading the prior pages and it sparked a reply). It's when dissecting the details that it looks like he did it. Let me just tell you what I'm getting via pure intuition okay... So this is more intuitive than logically hashing it out. But just see if you follow my idea of the "broader picture" as it were.

Okay so...

---

Wallace is an uppity by the book type of man and he essentially enforces the same uppity by the book-ness upon his wife. He's very controlling of her, but also overprotective. She's like his Rapunzel he keeps locked away in his castle. Julia is completely subservient to Wallace.

It's not his WIFE'S rigid rule not to admit strangers, it's HIS rigid rule that he's FORCED on her. Look at Amy Wallace's statement in fact, she says how Wallace often had to "remind her" not to let in strangers. He's overbearing and overprotective, you follow me? Look at how he freaks out when she's late home, and how she tells Albert Wood how he was so freaked out... Look at how others say he was "afraid of leaving her alone" to go to his chess meetings... It's not so much a fear born out of concern for her welbeing, as it is out of his overprotective and controlling manner.

Wallace has no need to murder Julia because she's completely subservient to him. He has her under lock and key and she sticks to his rule. She's the servant he's the master as it were.

Gordon Parry likes Julia. He and Julia have built some type of mother-son bond. It's not fake, it's quite genuine - Parry really does like Julia. He would not for a single second want any harm to come to her. He just wants the Prudential money. But I think he has mates who perhaps don't care quite so much as he does...

I think uppity Wallace really has been tricked out on this stupid errand and he's really the perfect mark for it. For some reason I feel like the address isn't INTENTIONALLY fake, I feel like Parry messed up when delivering it, I think it was meant to be WEST not East. No logical reason just a feeling.

I've written on my article and previous posts that I think the stranger is the killer. But right now I'm not seeing that intuitively... I feel like Julia trusts this person. Much like you would trust a neighbour or someone you know. But I think what she doesn't realize is this person doesn't really give a **** about her. I think he just wants to keep the old biddy busy in the parlour while his mates get in and loot whatever they can. I don't think he really gives a toss to think ahead from there, he just wants to keep the old lady occupied while they toss the place. I think this person is Marsden.

But Julia's realized what's happening, perhaps for example a sound alerts her. I don't even necessarily think it was the coins falling or the cabinet lid, but there's something... Then the person who she trusts and let into her home betrays her and bludgeons her right there and then. There's no thought for spray protection at all, it's a momentary act of aggression with no premeditation or planning. He is drenched as you would expect.

Now there's a brief interlude period. There are people in the house who of course don't yet know what's happened, and the killer of course who does. When they know what's happened, that's the END of the burglary. There's a brief period of "omg omg omg" type of thing, like "what do we do what do we do?!" the lights are turned off to make the house less conspicuous. That's what I'm getting intuitively... They're in there trynna work out wtf they're going to do etc. and this is the messy period...

I think a NUMBER of people know what happened to Julia Wallace but they just want to stay out of it for their own self-preservation. I think like Parkes said the Atkinsons advised him: "Don't have nothing to do with it". I think there are a number of people who decide that they "won't have nothing to do with it"... I even am getting, and again this is just intuition, that the neighbours have been actively threatened. I just get this feeling. I don't think the Johnstons were already planning to move, I think they moved because they felt threatened. I think they know more than they're letting on... I don't think they're involved in the crime at all, but they just know as any neighbour would.

They are quite right they've never heard arguments, because Julia daren't ever argue or kick up a fuss. Dear little lamb Julia would never disobey the gestapo William Herbert Wallace. Nor does he expect that she ever would.

I think Parkes' account is completely honest, I don't think he's lying OR exaggerating. I think he's being entirely honest. I think he probably thought Parry did it. But he (Parry) didn't. Parry was DEVASTATED to hear what happened to Julia. Parry was very fond of her, and in fact despite their differences, Parry did quite like Wallace too. But Parry is odd like that isn't he... He plays the badboy but at the same time he's a weekly attender at a drama club and is quite upper class, etc.

Wallace's diary entry about Parry wanting to speak to him is genuine. I think Parry was going to tell him that he knew who killed Julia. I think Wallace really did think it was Gordon, and I think Gordon felt angered and perhaps a bit betrayed that Wallace had turned the finger on him.

Intuitively I don't think William's gay. Intuitively I don't think he's unaware of Julia's age, I think he has always known but - again - due to his uptight pretentiousness I think he's tried to keep up appearances and lowballed it. For reasons of pride, both for himself and for his wife. The type of man Wallace is with the "stoicism", old fashioned values, uptightness and control, he feels that his wife represents him in a way, so to sully her image is to sully his own.


---

What I think is that the true victim here is Julia.

She's been trapped in an abusive domineering relationship with Wallace for the past 16 years, and is then bludgeoned to death in her own home by a man she trusted.

And I swear on my F-in grave that that's me talking with no bias whatsoever, that's what I honestly believe to be the truth right now in this moment as I'm saying it.

Wallace might be innocent of Julia's murder, but I'll concede to you anyway, that he essentially murdered any remnants of her persona years earlier when he locked her up in that SS-tier marriage... From the beautiful countryside of Harrogate into the four stone wall prison of Wolverton Street where she spent her days playing the obedient housewife. It really is like she was taken to a concentration camp.

[moste]

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?

I think the post office closed at eight and he left there to get the tram I seem to recall

[moste]

QUOTE: And I swear on my F-in grave that that's me talking with no bias whatsoever, that's what I honestly believe to be the truth right now in this moment as I'm saying it.

OK . That’s Me Done!!

[WallaceWackedHer]

QUOTE: And I swear on my F-in grave that that's me talking with no bias whatsoever, that's what I honestly believe to be the truth right now in this moment as I'm saying it.

OK . That’s Me Done!!

Have no fear I'm not actually dead loool. Dramatic licence

But yes like I said that's what I'm honestly getting intuition and big-picture-wise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think Parkes' account is completely honest, I

[WallaceWackedHer]

yes I'm afraid so. I really am seeing that.

I also wrote in my article and prior posts two people are there. Intuitively I'm thinking more... I'm seeing it that they have a man acting as a lookout. I feel like two men enter the home from the back, while one man occupies Julia in the parlour.

Like I said though logic says the stranger is a better fit for the killer, for some reason I'm seeing it that the killer is a trusted person who she trusts more than she ought to. This is a bad man, perhaps a bit sociopathic.

There may then be four there at the time either committing the break in, distracting Julia, or keeping watch. I know I write it's two people, but I feel from intuition there's more than two...

I think Parry is frightened of these men. He's a toff upper class drama club lad trying to act like a gangster. But these are REAL ruffians, unlike Parry who's all bark and no bite. He would have been devastated to hear about Julia.

I think Parkes is telling the truth and I think that's why Parry blurted this **** out. He's like, in shock, he can't believe what's happened. Not only emotionally because he genuinely liked Julia and would have been saddened by the news, but then also fear, all sorts of emotions. I think he would have been a complete utter basket case.

---

I might argue against myself when building a full detailed picture via logic. But like I said I'm talking intuitively, that's just what strikes me.

Like what honestly strikes me, without me trying to make myself seem correct etc... In other words putting my ego aside... And that's what hits me.

Hopefully I've provided you an intriguing wall of text at the least haha.

[Herlock Sholmes]

yes I'm afraid so. I really am seeing that.

I also wrote in my article and prior posts two people are there. Intuitively I'm thinking more... I'm seeing it that they have a man acting as a lookout. I feel like two men enter the home from the back, while one man occupies Julia in the parlour.

Like I said though logic says the stranger is a better fit for the killer, for some reason I'm seeing it that the killer is a trusted person who she trusts more than she ought to. This is a bad man, perhaps a bit sociopathic.

There may then be four there at the time either committing the break in, distracting Julia, or keeping watch. I know I write it's two people, but I feel from intuition there's more than two...

I think Parry is frightened of these men. He's a toff upper class drama club lad trying to act like a gangster. But these are REAL ruffians, unlike Parry who's all bark and no bite. He would have been devastated to hear about Julia.

I think Parkes is telling the truth and I think that's why Parry blurted this **** out. He's like, in shock, he can't believe what's happened. Not only emotionally because he genuinely liked Julia and would have been saddened by the news, but then also fear, all sorts of emotions. I think he would have been a complete utter basket case.

---

I might argue against myself when building a full detailed picture via logic. But like I said I'm talking intuitively, that's just what strikes me.

Like what honestly strikes me, without me trying to make myself seem correct etc... In other words putting my ego aside... And that's what hits me.

Hopefully I've provided you an intriguing wall of text at the least haha.

You certainly won’t be surprised that I disagree with you on this one.

You say that logic makes a stranger a better fit as a killer but it’s also worth mentioning that statistics favour William as the murderer of a wife murdered in the home (we can also add the level of overkill - how many blows with an iron bar are needed to kill a seventy years old woman?)

We also can’t dismiss the undoubted fact that if this is supposed to have been a robbery it’s certainly a pathetic one. We have a paltry £5 haul after they had expected £100 or so and yet they don’t look for more money or valuables. The more people present means a smaller share. If the front door was bolted as William claimed (lied more like) then they’d have had no problem making a safe getaway, giving them plenty of time to have a search for more cash.

Nerves or fear really can’t be used to explain Parry’s alleged behaviour with Parkes. This was hours after the murder. He didn’t have to go to the Atkinson’s Garage but he supposedly chose to. Even if he’d blabbed when Parkes saw the mitten there was absolutely no need to blab about the weapon. And then we have the huge question of why he at no time tells or asks Parkes to keep quiet. There’s not one single thing about this episode that makes sense even for the most nervous man in the world unless of course we claim that he was the most stupid man in the world.