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

[Herlock Sholmes]

BTW Herlock, nice paper. I agree mostly LOL!...just a few minor changes.

Thank you Ven

[WallaceWackedHer]

This doesn’t come close to disproving the theory I’m afraid. It might easily be suggested that the killer threatened her by saying “keep your mouth shut and you won’t get hurt.” Julia starts to get jumpy so the killer walks her without her having time to defend herself. This is very simple and I can’t believe that the day would come when I’d be partially defending Rod’s theory.

Yeah I realize... I mean you could make it better in ways like that, but the scenario as reconstructed that we're told is close to impossible.

Further the criminal by now has successfully stolen from the box, he can just run. If he's discovered and panics she's gonna be dead in the hall or kitchen or w.e...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I forgot to mention a while ago that you say in your piece on the case that it was completely wrong for the Prosecution to have said that only Wallace knew that he’d be there on the Monday night because on the notice board it said that he was due to play a game on the 19th against Mr Chandler. This is wrong.

Firstly, just being due to do something doesn’t make it automatic that you will do something.

and Second, if you look on the board Wallace was due to have played Mr Walsh two weeks earlier on the fifth and that match wasn’t played. Of course it could have been Walsh that didn’t turn up but it might well have been Wallace. He’d also missed a game against Mr Moore on Dec 8th and Mr McCarthy on 24th November.

To state that only Wallace could have been certain that he’d attend the club that Monday night is to state a fact.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I forgot to mention a while ago that you say in your piece on the case that it was completely wrong for the Prosecution to have said that only Wallace knew that he’d be there on the Monday night because on the notice board it said that he was due to play a game on the 19th against Mr Chandler. This is wrong.

Firstly, just being due to do something doesn’t make it automatic that you will do something.

and Second, if you look on the board Wallace was due to have played Mr Walsh two weeks earlier on the fifth and that match wasn’t played. Of course it could have been Walsh that didn’t turn up but it might well have been Wallace. He’d also missed a game against Mr Moore on Dec 8th and Mr McCarthy on 24th November.

To state that only Wallace could have been certain that he’d attend the club that Monday night is to state a fact.

No it isn't wrong.

You can't be certain anyone will attend ANY appointment they have, it's not exclusive to chess clubs.

The fact is it shows which dates you can expect him to be there, anyone who sees the chart can know when to expect him to attend.

The chart is completely illegible without a key or explanation. It looks like the Xs are when he didn't come but it's not, then there's numbers and letters on days he skipped. Unless there's a key there somewhere on the noticeboard, it's not possible to know by looking at it when he wasn't there.

It's also not possible to tell if this trick was attempted before too but nobody saw him leave his house and so never tried it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

‘

No it isn't wrong.

You can't be certain anyone will attend ANY appointment they have, it's not exclusive to chess clubs.

Exactly. So Parry couldn’t have assumed that Wallace would have turned up. He could only have hoped felt that there was a chance.

The fact is it shows which dates you can expect him to be there, anyone who sees the chart can know when to expect him to attend.

The chart is completely illegible without a key or explanation. It looks like the Xs are when he didn't come but it's not, then there's numbers and letters on days he skipped. Unless there's a key there somewhere on the noticeboard, it's not possible to know by looking at it when he wasn't there.

It's also not possible to tell if this trick was attempted before too but nobody saw him leave his house and so never tried it.

Dates at the top (as you already know of course)

The numbers in the boxes going across horizontally denote the person that the player on the list on the left is due to play. If the game had been played then either a ‘w’ for win, an ‘L’ for lost or a ‘d’ for drawn is entered. So if a particular box has a number but none of those three letters then we know categorically that the game had yet to be played.

If you look at the table every player has one ‘x’ in his line. This is because there are 7 players in the league and so every fourth week a player would have no one to play. Three games require 6 players and so one is surplus. The ‘x’ marks the date where each player has their ‘no one to play’ day.


And so anyone looking at the board would very easily see that Wallace had missed his last 2 games before his game on the 19th. And so, if anything, they’d have said “well I can’t rely on him turning up.”

More very obvious evidence in favour of Wallace.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I was very careful with the stated facts. If I show you a calendar that says someone has a dentist appointment on January 19th, only the person with the appointment KNOWS 100% if they'll go or not, it's semantics that I think most people understand without needing to be told.

The important part is about the prior dates moreso. I've seen that noticeboard. It looks from the board like he went on the days when he didn't. It's a nonsensical chart. I don't see any key or guide there to tell the average person viewing it what it all means.

You wouldn't know what you just said unless you'd read it. I certainly don't.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Nobody is telling me with a straight face they can glance at that heiroglyphic-tier noticeboard and know when someone didn't turn up.

I won't accept it.

Like right now I have to use what you just said, and I'm not going to scroll up to check the dates you gave me... So let's see... It looks like the second column has a letter (I think?) or if it's just a pen mark he skipped that, then the third column he skipped, fifth column he skipped, sixth column he skipped, seventh column he skipped. The X I assume he skips.

Oh but hang on the 19th is the day he did go. And there's a "1" in the box with no letter.

The chart is a joke. It's indecipherable. A layperson such as myself, would assume the X is when someone fails to show. Unless there's a key there, it's indecipherable to anyone who isn't part of the club.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nobody is telling me with a straight face they can glance at that heiroglyphic-tier noticeboard and know when someone didn't turn up.

I won't accept it.

Like right now I have to use what you just said, and I'm not going to scroll up to check the dates you gave me... So let's see... It looks like the second column has a letter (I think?) or if it's just a pen mark he skipped that, then the third column he skipped, fifth column he skipped, sixth column he skipped, seventh column he skipped. The X I assume he skips.

Oh but hang on the 19th is the day he did go. And there's a "1" in the box with no letter.

The chart is a joke. It's indecipherable. A layperson such as myself, would assume the X is when someone fails to show. Unless there's a key there, it's indecipherable to anyone who isn't part of the club.

I’m sorry but you’re saying that just because you can’t understand it no one would. It’s a very general way that these kind of league tables are done. I don’t claim to be a genius but I understood it straight away. It’s very simple. The number in the box tells you who that person is due to play. Average people use them all the time in pub darts, dominoes and crib leagues. W, L and D are win, lose and draw. No letter means the game wasn’t played.

As the game against Chandler wasn’t filled in it’s possible that the results were handed to Beattie who hadn’t filled them in yet or that Wallace was meant to fill it in but had forgotten. But the point is that the table is easy to understand and a person looking at it would see that Wallace hadn’t played 3 out of his last four games. Obviously he wouldn’t be thinking “well he might have played all of these games but not filled the board in going back a whole month.” He’d very naturally have assumed that Wallace had failed to play 3 games. To an average pub or club visiting man this table would have posed no problems.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I was very careful with the stated facts. If I show you a calendar that says someone has a dentist appointment on January 19th, only the person with the appointment KNOWS 100% if they'll go or not, it's semantics that I think most people understand without needing to be told.

Then I can’t understand why you appear to be saying that just because someone looked at the board in the chess club and saw that Wallace was due to play then they would have been confident that he would actually attend? Even if he didn’t know of Wallace’s poor attendance (which he could have seen by looking at the board) he could still only say that he could have attended. Would you plan a murder on a possibility? Maybe. But only Wallace knew for absolute certain that he’d be there to receive the message. I’ve never tried to claim this as a game changer. It is what it is.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I’m sorry but you’re saying that just because you can’t understand it no one would. It’s a very general way that these kind of league tables are done. I don’t claim to be a genius but I understood it straight away. It’s very simple. The number in the box tells you who that person is due to play. Average people use them all the time in pub darts, dominoes and crib leagues. W, L and D are win, lose and draw. No letter means the game wasn’t played.

As the game against Chandler wasn’t filled in it’s possible that the results were handed to Beattie who hadn’t filled them in yet or that Wallace was meant to fill it in but had forgotten. But the point is that the table is easy to understand and a person looking at it would see that Wallace hadn’t played 3 out of his last four games. Obviously he wouldn’t be thinking “well he might have played all of these games but not filled the board in going back a whole month.” He’d very naturally have assumed that Wallace had failed to play 3 games. To an average pub or club visiting man this table would have posed no problems.

I've never seen anything annotated this way, my dad plays darts for a regional league. I'll show this to him.

It's not easy to understand. At least not until I've been told by you now.

Parry wasn't a drinker (says Wallace) so I don't know that he's a regular pub attender. I go to pubs - well, to drink. I have no clue what that means.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Then I can’t understand why you appear to be saying that just because someone looked at the board in the chess club and saw that Wallace was due to play then they would have been confident that he would actually attend? Even if he didn’t know of Wallace’s poor attendance (which he could have seen by looking at the board) he could still only say that he could have attended. Would you plan a murder on a possibility? Maybe. But only Wallace knew for absolute certain that he’d be there to receive the message. I’ve never tried to claim this as a game changer. It is what it is.

I asked my dad, as I said he plays darts for a regional team (he's played against professionals). He said the chart makes no sense and maybe the Xs are a no-show.

So no it's not obvious to anyone who goes to a pub...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I asked my dad, as I said he plays darts for a regional team (he's played against professionals). He said the chart makes no sense and maybe the Xs are a no-show.

So no it's not obvious to anyone who goes to a pub...

I’ve also played darts for 30 years (but not anymore) And pool too. I also played in a club snooker league for three years. It would be a bit strange if the x’s were all no shows and every player had one each. Did they take turns to not show up? There are 7 players in the league so in games that require 2 people it’s obvious that every week one player won’t have a game. Hence the x.

[Herlock Sholmes]

An intriguing idea from Antony about the disposal of the weapon. Because the iron bar and the poker were missing the police believed that one of these was the murder weapon and therefore this is what they searched for without success. But what if neither of these were actually the weapon? What if, before the murder, William had disposed of them both knowing that their absence would have been noticed by Sarah Draper (and with William himself to point this out of course) Might this have allowed William to have used something unknown and unsuspected object which could have remained inside the house?

The obvious objection of course is the fact that the object would have been contaminated with blood and brain matter but could there have been a way around this? I have one suggestion.

Could Wallace have cleaned the object in the toilet bowl using paper? A flush or two and the evidence was gone? Might this also explain the blood spot on the toilet rim?

We don’t have an inventory of objects in the house after all and William, in one of his John Bull articles, not only said that the killer might have used the mackintosh as a shield but he also said that:

"He followed my wife into the sitting-room, and as she bent down and lit the gas-fire he struck her, possibly with a spanner." John Bull, 21.05.32

Did William have a spanner somewhere? In his laboratory for example. Of course it didn’t have to have been a spanner. Alternatively if the murder weapon wasn’t the poker or the bar, but this is what the police were looking for, might not William simply have disposed of it on his route (after cleaning it) and this is why the police never found it.....because they were looking for something else?

[WallaceWackedHer]

An intriguing idea from Antony about the disposal of the weapon. Because the iron bar and the poker were missing the police believed that one of these was the murder weapon and therefore this is what they searched for without success. But what if neither of these were actually the weapon? What if, before the murder, William had disposed of them both knowing that their absence would have been noticed by Sarah Draper (and with William himself to point this out of course) Might this have allowed William to have used something unknown and unsuspected object which could have remained inside the house?

The obvious objection of course is the fact that the object would have been contaminated with blood and brain matter but could there have been a way around this? I have one suggestion.

Could Wallace have cleaned the object in the toilet bowl using paper? A flush or two and the evidence was gone? Might this also explain the blood spot on the toilet rim?

We don’t have an inventory of objects in the house after all and William, in one of his John Bull articles, not only said that the killer might have used the mackintosh as a shield but he also said that:

"He followed my wife into the sitting-room, and as she bent down and lit the gas-fire he struck her, possibly with a spanner." John Bull, 21.05.32

Did William have a spanner somewhere? In his laboratory for example. Of course it didn’t have to have been a spanner. Alternatively if the murder weapon wasn’t the poker or the bar, but this is what the police were looking for, might not William simply have disposed of it on his route (after cleaning it) and this is why the police never found it.....because they were looking for something else?

Yeah I shouldn't imagine a calculated killer would have need to remove any weapon, unless say, the bar bent. I don't think it would be contaminated at all because any smart man would have the thing wrapped and then just dispose of the wrapping, the weapon Mr. Sheen tier clean. Someone might neglect to think of that option, but it is an obvious one like putting the jacket actually over the woman's head.

A spanner I think would not be adequate. A hammer would be better. A spanner to legitimately cave her skull into her brain - I mean you could kill someone with a spanner, but for that level of damage I think that's more a job for a heavier duty tool.

He's wrong about when the strike landed... The fire was already lit, he suggests in a different paragraph it's before she had time to regulate the gas fire. She would have been hit just as she went to get up.

Premed to me I would expect the strike directly on the back of her head. It's bizarre to land on the front of her head, and it's not like she was flinching because the direction of said flinch wouldn't match.

[OneRound]

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

Hi Herlock - well, no rotten fruit and veg from me. An open and honest assessment with your views well explained. I particularly liked you distinguishing between fact and supposition, and not trying to ram the latter down our throats and make anyone out to be an idiot if he or she disagreed.

When I first started looking into this case a couple of years or so ago, I was inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to William Wallace and put his odd actions down to the fact that … the geeky, chess playing, insurance man was odd. However, I've since formed the view that his actions weren't just odd but downright suspicious. Your piece - and I've read the whole full length shooting match! - goes a very long way to supporting those suspicions and pointing towards Wallace being responsible for his wife's murder. As you are at pains to emphasise, that's insufficient to legally convict him (and the jury were wrong to do so) but that's not what we are about here.

From what we know of Wallace's character, his actions and inactions before and after the murder seem so unlikely if he were indeed innocent. Just a few examples - the normally meticulous Wallace not bothering to check or consult a map for where he was going for a potentially important meeting but to wing it; having set off, the usually shy and reserved Wallace trumpeting to so many where he was going and to whom he was going to see and then his refusal to accept the non-existence of MGE - I loved you likening it to him being thwarted in his attempt to discover the source of the Nile; and then all the performance with the keys and the bolt with his neighbours. Nope, together it's all too much for me to buy. I therefore side with you in believing he planned it.

Where though I found your piece less convincing was in the actual physical killing of Julia. Although you make the case for Wallace having sufficient time, it was still tight for him to do so. Furthermore, there had to be the risk of blood splatter on him (even if it didn't occur) which may have stopped him from personally wielding the weapon. That then leads to another issue - if he did kill her himself, what did he do with the weapon and why wasn't it found? To your credit, you don't duck this but acknowledge it and don't attempt an invented explanation.

This makes me wonder if Wallace was aided by an accomplice who actually killed Julia and perhaps made the phone call to the chess club which would of course explain why Wallace's voice wasn't recognised. [I gave more of my thinking about this on the main thread in January last year to your mate Antony as he requested although he p*ss*d me off by not having the grace to even acknowledge.] ADMITTEDLY (it's a large ''admittedly''), this then prompts the question - who could that person have been? I don't know and don't pretend to but don't see it as inconceivable. As I've said in earlier posts, we don't know everything about Wallace and anyone who says we do is a fool.

On one particular bit of detail, I'm unclear why you attach so much significance to the killer turning the lights off and that pointing to Wallace. If Wallace killed her himself, I would have thought he would have wanted to leave the lights on so as to make it seem that Julia was safely there by herself when he left. If someone else killed her, I could more readily envisage that person turning the lights off to aid his escape unseen.

Best regards,
OneRound