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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah, the butchers. That’s where the food link came from. I’m not mad after all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apparently a carpenter's shop at 74 Windemere Street, about half a mile's walk SW from Wolverton Street.

Thanks Joshua, for some reason my brain was telling me that it was a shop related to food.

[Joshua Rogan]

Oh nice, where did you find that? I usually use Gannon's book and he doesn't seem aware of that shop:

"Qualtrough who was a butcher; but he had his shop 3 miles away at 108 Country Road, Walton."

I vaguely remember it being discussed here a few years ago, and this site by a Mr Qualtrough refreshed my memory. He references Gannon's book so I think it must be in there somewhere.

http://www.qualtrough.org/articles/articles-uk/rm-wallace.html

[WallaceWackedHer]

Apparently a carpenter's shop at 74 Windemere Street, about half a mile's walk SW from Wolverton Street.

Oh nice, where did you find that? I usually use Gannon's book and he doesn't seem aware of that shop:

"Qualtrough who was a butcher; but he had his shop 3 miles away at 108 Country Road, Walton."

[Joshua Rogan]

But I'm sure that I recall that there was a shop not far away with that name.

Apparently a carpenter's shop at 74 Windemere Street, about half a mile's walk SW from Wolverton Street.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.