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

[Herlock Sholmes]

As WWH has said the door was moved for the benefit of the photographer. You’ll notice that in the photograph taken from the door there’s a chair in front of the sideboard but in the photograph taken from the window the chair had been moved to the side of the sideboard (which couldn’t have been its original position as the door wouldn’t have opened properly) This was probably so that the photographer could get through with his equipment without having to step over the blood around Julia’s head or accidentally disturbing the body.

It might also be worth suggesting that the blood spatter on the wall at the left hand side of the grate might not have been from the first blow (as Moste has suggested. Isnt it also possible that some of this blood might have come from the weapon as it was wielded by Wallace err...I mean the killer

[Herlock Sholmes]

The frenzy myth needs to end though.

First of all MANY burglars who killed practiced "overkill" to avoid the witness regaining consciousness to give a testimony then dying and a charge of murder being delivered.

Second of all, McFall originally said 3 blows. If he says 3 to 12, the margin is so wide as to be completely unreliable.

The amount of strikes does not show it's William. And fuether if William wanted to smash her head in anyway, but wants to get away blood free, the less hits the better.

I agree that, in fairness, we cannot say “so many blows, such frenzy, this can only have been someone that had a personal reason for killing her,” which would naturally point to William. It’s only statistics that say it’s far more often the case that it was a family member but it certainly doesn’t preclude any other suspect (unless they had no arms of course)

On the number of blows. I think it was Antony who first raised the possibility of fewer blows based on McFall’s wording. I don’t have any books with me to check but wasn’t it stated in response to him being asked how many blows to kill Julia? And that consequently his answer was specific. Three to kill her and the rest needlessly vicious? I’m working from memory here so I could be totally wrong.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I agree that, in fairness, we cannot say “so many blows, such frenzy, this can only have been someone that had a personal reason for killing her,” which would naturally point to William. It’s only statistics that say it’s far more often the case that it was a family member but it certainly doesn’t preclude any other suspect (unless they had no arms of course)

On the number of blows. I think it was Antony who first raised the possibility of fewer blows based on McFall’s wording. I don’t have any books with me to check but wasn’t it stated in response to him being asked how many blows to kill Julia? And that consequently his answer was specific. Three to kill her and the rest needlessly vicious? I’m working from memory here so I could be totally wrong.

I have the actual images of the autopsy report, I have no idea why I have not uploaded this on my site. Here it is:



The final sentence on the second page is where the three to four times is mentioned.

Yes it may be that the three to four he estimated would have killed her... But we must remember he contradicted this. On trial he said the very first strike killed her IIRC.

Also he drastically changed his time of death estimate, so that would seem to fit with him being the type of person to just dramatically change opinions on things.

[WallaceWackedHer]

It might also be worth suggesting that the blood spatter on the wall at the left hand side of the grate might not have been from the first blow (as Moste has suggested. Isnt it also possible that some of this blood might have come from the weapon as it was wielded by Wallace err...I mean the killer

I thought it might be. But the forensic experts made it clear they believed it was from the actual wound. I TRY to take as much of what they say as I can as fact, although it can be proven at least some of the things they've said are wrong - or for example the experts disagree with each other on trial.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I was just thinking.......

If the fire is already on (in order for it to get hot so as to burn the things as it did), then what exactly is Julia doing down there? We have already given some possibilities... What about another, she's stooping down to the cat which has indeed been used to help a stranger gain entry (albeit I don't think it's necessary as a scheme to get in).

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have the actual images of the autopsy report, I have no idea why I have not uploaded this on my site. Here it is:



The final sentence on the second page is where the three to four times is mentioned.

Yes it may be that the three to four he estimated would have killed her... But we must remember he contradicted this. On trial he said the very first strike killed her IIRC.

Also he drastically changed his time of death estimate, so that would seem to fit with him being the type of person to just dramatically change opinions on things.

He also mentions ten wounds earlier in the report.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was just thinking.......

If the fire is already on (in order for it to get hot so as to burn the things as it did), then what exactly is Julia doing down there? We have already given some possibilities... What about another, she's stooping down to the cat which has indeed been used to help a stranger gain entry (albeit I don't think it's necessary as a scheme to get in).

You and that bloody cat

[WallaceWackedHer]

He also mentions ten wounds earlier in the report.

Yes he does. I see that now.

I am quite diehard on the cat. I've posted the entire case on loads of threads online and aside from me there have only been two other people who read the case facts and said "wait wtf, the cat went missing then turned up the night she died?"

It's obviously not something that many people find important. But myself and like a few others, that just strikes us as a totalllll "wtf" occurrence. Well, for me mainly because of the "confession" - irrespective of whether Johnston is the one who said it or not.

But on the murder story I wrote on my site (the crime retelling not the solution), someone picked up on that one sentence where I said the cat was gone.

Obv it's something a very tiny minority of people see and attach great importance to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I love The Hound Of The Baskervilles so perhaps you could write The Cat Of The Wallace’s.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I received my two books today in double quick time. The Lustgarten is a modern reprint and the Rowland is in close to mint condition. I’m just about to start it but I’ve just checked the photo plates. The one of the phone box is obviously just a more modern box transposed on to the spot (which I’m giving him the benefit of saying is the correct location) The iron railings are missing though which obviously could have occurred in the 18 years between crime and book.

In the preface he mentions discussing the case with Mr Waveney Girvan who, from looking online, must have been Ian Waverley Girvan who was an interesting character but it has no bearing on the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just started the Rowland book. Just a pretty bog standard intro of course but it has served to remind me of the comments that William made after hearing Ibsen's play The Master Builder

“......This is a fine thing and shows clearly how a man may build up a fine career, and, as the world has it, be a great success, and yet in his own mind feel that he has been an utter failure, and how ghastly a mistake he has made to sacrifice to love, and the deeper comforts of life, in order to achieve success. Curious that Julia did not appreciate this play! I feel sure she did not grasp the inner significance and real meaning of the play.”

He asking why his wife didn’t appreciate or understand the message of a play about a man who mistakenly sacrifices a possible successful career for domesticity. What ‘inner significance?’ Who might he be describing?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I’ve just started the Rowland book. Just a pretty bog standard intro of course but it has served to remind me of the comments that William made after hearing Ibsen's play The Master Builder

“......This is a fine thing and shows clearly how a man may build up a fine career, and, as the world has it, be a great success, and yet in his own mind feel that he has been an utter failure, and how ghastly a mistake he has made to sacrifice to love, and the deeper comforts of life, in order to achieve success. Curious that Julia did not appreciate this play! I feel sure she did not grasp the inner significance and real meaning of the play.”

He asking why his wife didn’t appreciate or understand the message of a play about a man who mistakenly sacrifices a possible successful career for domesticity. What ‘inner significance?’ Who might he be describing?

Ironically it's the literal opposite.

It's about how the guy (the builder) sacrifices love etc. to have this super successful career and despite being so successful is still unhappy because love is way more important. Well - not only love but everything in life.

You can watch the play on YouTube, and also this page is quite good:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/ed...ster-builder#D

The quote is "to sacrifice love" not "to sacrifice TO love". Wallace obviously doesn't care about being a success anyway so it makes sense he'd see it this way. He might have cared in Malaya, but now he's too sick to be successful like Joseph back in England he keeps the exact same position with the Pru for a decade without a promotion.

While enjoying botany, nature, philosophical musings over the meaning of existence etc.

What's also ironic is that in this play the builder says he feels he's "chained to a corpse" in his elderly wife. So he gets a new young girl, and it's this that leads to him falling from a tower to his death.

Wallace admonishing the titular character seems to suggest he himself is the exact OPPOSITE type of person.

[moste]

The frenzy myth needs to end though.

First of all MANY burglars who killed practiced "overkill" to avoid the witness regaining consciousness to give a testimony then dying and a charge of murder being delivered.

Second of all, McFall originally said 3 blows. If he says 3 to 12, the margin is so wide as to be completely unreliable.

The amount of strikes does not show it's William. And fuether if William wanted to smash her head in anyway, but wants to get away blood free, the less hits the better.

Consider though, a disturbed burglar, taken by surprise by Julia ( maybe upstairs, she heard commotion down stairs perhaps believing it to be William home again) ,intruder has moved into the parlour still not aware of another presence in the house .Julia confronts him in there, game over! Now , a burglar that is not recognized I would submit only smacks her to the ground and takes off. On the other hand a local guy that she instantly recognizes is now in deep ‘doo doos’ and knows if he doesn’t finish her off ,is going down for a long time.
But no! I can’t accept that this was not a personal attack , the perpetrator of this killing was experiencing severe malice. Along with my view of a blunt instrument not necessarily opening a bloody wound with the first blow, I would only add, to smash the skull open shattering bone ,and spewing blood such a distance ,as the statement alludes ,required immense force, and probably more than 4 or 5 strikes . This whole scene stinks of Vendetta, in my opinion.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Consider though, a disturbed burglar, taken by surprise by Julia ( maybe upstairs, she heard commotion down stairs perhaps believing it to be William home again) ,intruder has moved into the parlour still not aware of another presence in the house .Julia confronts him in there, game over! Now , a burglar that is not recognized I would submit only smacks her to the ground and takes off. On the other hand a local guy that she instantly recognizes is now in deep ‘doo doos’ and knows if he doesn’t finish her off ,is going down for a long time.
But no! I can’t accept that this was not a personal attack , the perpetrator of this killing was experiencing severe malice. Along with my view of a blunt instrument not necessarily opening a bloody wound with the first blow, I would only add, to smash the skull open shattering bone ,and spewing blood such a distance ,as the statement alludes ,required immense force, and probably more than 4 or 5 strikes . This whole scene stinks of Vendetta, in my opinion.

Yeah I thought that, but had to make serious amendments to my thoughts after reading old newspapers. Would you change your mind if I showed you a bunch of horrifically brutal blunt force attacks carried out by burglars at the time?

I like the idea of her investigating a sound in the dark parlour. But evidence supports her knowingly being in there with someone.

[moste]

Yeah I thought that, but had to make serious amendments to my thoughts after reading old newspapers. Would you change your mind if I showed you a bunch of horrifically brutal blunt force attacks carried out by burglars at the time?

I like the idea of her investigating a sound in the dark parlour. But evidence supports her knowingly being in there with someone.

What’s this? Associated with Anfield ?