Announcement

**WallaceWackedHer** · 05-09-2020, 09:48 AM

Also forensic updates in order (this is the second consultant I have hired, as it's good to get multiple opinions on forensic matters as we see from real court cases):

I agree with your assessment of Gannon being a mess. He requotes frequently and puts in pages of history which have only minimal contribution to the case. Great info but difficult to follow. I just finished on the Kindle last night and have gone on to the Wilkes and Goodman books. I hope to review the trial transcript today but that requires me being at my computer rather than the Kindle. Do you know whether the Hussey book is available there in England at a reasonable cost? It seems like it would be an interesting read. But to buy here in the US it would be nearly $50 US.

With regard to the photos and the Mackintosh see what I have circled below. To my eye the corner of the Mackintosh is seen just beyond the edge of the chair on the hearth rug just to the side of her left hand. Clearly to me if what you circled under and next to her head is a grey Mackintosh, and I would agree, it would have to be a different one. I also see no blood on the one laid out on the floor. But there is clear blood on the grey item beneath the head. I am hoping reading the trial transcript will clear this up. The b&w photo from the doorway (from criminalia.es) seems to have better resolution. Do you have a similar b&w photo taken from behind the settee? I do not see that on the web site.

With regard to the settee (next to the window) and the wide armchair (“two seater chair” might be his use since the armchair is wider than the other chairs) to the left of the fireplace:

The settee does appear to have pillows arranged for someone who is reclining, as Gannon states. But apparently there is no blood in that corner of the room. All of the blood is around the armchair. But… the violin case is lying on the arms of the chair. It would seem clear that someone was not sitting in the settee when the attack started due to lack of blood and was not sitting in the armchair either. I actually favor at present Julia bending down at the fireplace (but not to light the fireplace, as Gannon makes a case that the fireplace had been on, and it would likely be on for some time in order to be hot enough to burn the Mac and her dress) as McFall apparently says when questioned by Oliver. If so, she might fall against the hot fireplace when first struck.

With regard to the fur edged mitted mentioned by Gannon, try as I might I cannot see that clearly in the photos I have (his enlargement – photo 44 – is too fuzzy to conclude). Are you convinced?

Finally, if I am able to be of assistance, I was wondering about presenting this case at a forensic meeting. The American Academy of Forensic Sciences meets yearly in February. There are two venues that would be appropriate. The first is an evening session called “Last word” where presenters are given around 30 min to present a historic case to the assembly. The second would be at a breakfast seminar, where similar topics are given an hour. Thoughts? A great way to get the best forensic scientists from around the world to consider the case.

The grey item on the side of the body does seem consistent with a mac. I am trying to find someone who states which one was held up for Wallace to view when he noted the repaired areas and stated it was his. And if this was done before or after the photos (my assumption is before). Why they would not hold up the one under the head would be odd, but replacing the bloodstained one under the head before taking the pic would be very odd – but consistent with the other items they examined and replaced.

As far as what she was doing, it probably makes no sense that she was turning on the fireplace. It appears that the fireplace would have had to been on for some time to cause the 3 parallel burn marks. But she could have been reclining on the settee and then got up to meet the person and was struck when she got to the left side of the fireplace. If she approached someone from the settee a right handed person would have struck her on the left side of the head if they were facing each other as she was passing him on his left while he faced her. But that would imply that either the caller broke in, was able to get in via a key or unlocked door, or had been there for some time. The last appears a bit unlikely given the limited time frame. If we reverse positions and it was him reclining on the settee with her standing near the sideboard, as he approached her he would strike on her left side and get blood cast off toward the wide chair with the violin case. But the main issue I have with the blood seems to be that I do not recall seeing information on blood spatter on that chair or on the case, which would be odd if someone was not seated on the chair in front of the case. Am I correct about the spatter pattern?

One thing that struck me last night while reading Wilkes… It was noted that MacFall said death was w/in 4 hrs when he arrived at 9:50 pm. Then Pierce arrives at 11:50 pm and concludes death 6 hrs before. Both of those observations are identical and indicate a time of 5:50 pm for the killing, which is while Wallace is at Miss Miller’s and before he came back home for tea. Very odd that they both describe identical rigidity even though 2 hrs had passed. But there is no disagreement, just an impossible timeframe. Then the observation of the clotted blood has MacFall say it was 2-3 hrs old and indicates a time of 6:50-7:50 for the killing. This is much more plausible but is after Wallace leaves. It appears that Alan Close delivered the milk right around the time Wallace left for Menlove. If you rely on Wildman, he says he sees Close at 6:38 pm, which would be before Wallace left. But no matter what, those two stories have Julia alive at the back door, leaving Wallace no time to kill her, clean up and end up getting on the #4 tram at 7:06 pm.

But to your original question.. I see no way that anyone could have committed the murder without getting seriously blood stained. And then certainly have done it in the time frame allotted.

More to come…

The grey item on the floor certainly looks like a mac to me. Too short to cover the body. But I still find it very odd that there is one under the head too. Very important which one was held up for Wallace to inspect. Even with their mistakes, I cannot envision them taking out the one under the head to show him then replacing it under the head. It would be good to know when the pics were taken and when they showed the mac to Wallace.

Fireplace was more likely already on before the encounter. And then she brushed against it. But then she would have to be standing/pushed inside the fireplace fender.

In response to me asking if the jacket would protect from spray even if worn with or without clothing underneath (as opposed to being held up like a shield):

Yes, even if worn. There would still be spatter on the attackers face and neck (and hands unless wearing gloves). And on the lower pant legs and shoes, since a mac does not drag on the floor. And I can't accept it being used as a “shield”. You simply can't hold up a coat like that and protect your entire body. We know from the spatter at the scene that it was not placed over the head for all blows (if any). And if it was over the head for “some” of the blows the lab should have been able to detect defects – most likely true tears – in the material. Absent that, unless we think the lab was incompetent too, I do not think the mac was ever over the head when it was being hit.

As I think it was accepted that Julia was alive when the milk boy arrived, the concept of Wallace being naked is simply absurd to me. Not enough time for all that and still make it to the tram.

I actually have a lot of trouble believing that anyone involved in this murder was that calculating. It seems to be either a crime of passion or an offender who panicked. With “overkill”. In my opinion offenders like that are not nearly so neat nor do they plan so well

I would think it would be possible that the attacker had come in via the yard door and left it unbolted. Then when he got (or was let) in, he bolted the kitchen door. The fact that Wallace found the yard door unbolted seems to indicate someone other than Julia had gone through that door. And even if let in, Julia may not have bolted it since she felt safe with the visitor. Seems she only bolted it when home alone.

No matter where they are in the room, if facing each other a right handed person would be most likely to strike the head on the left. If behind her a right handed person would be most likely to strike on the right side. Once she is on her stomach on the ground with her chin facing her left shoulder (as in the photos) the left side of her head would be up and either a right or left handed person could inflict the blows.

**WallaceWackedHer** · 05-09-2020, 10:04 AM

I should add that he hasn't read the testimonies of the experts on trial yet. So this is preliminary. He read every page of Gannon's book (painful) which has the largest mass of information. Albeit riddled with critical errors.

It seems the bar by the fireplace Wallace said he had never seen was perhaps not missing at all. But the fireplace poker may well be... It is also longer than the iron bar and the other forensic expert told me she thinks the weapon might be long. So the weapon - if anything was missing from the home at all or just police incompetence touching and moving everything - then it might be the poker from the living kitchen where the cash box is.

**WallaceWackedHer** · 05-09-2020, 02:35 PM

Original mackintosh image attched to the post miniature for some reason, so here:

Keep in mind though I had this colourized and I had said the thing under Julia is a mackintosh, so it may be something like Julia's cardigan/jumper thing twisted round sticking out there which was coloured in grey because I said it's a grey mackintosh.

Here's the black and white, see if you can help me with this:

**Al Bundy's Eyes** · 05-11-2020, 08:08 PM

Hi Wallace,
way more than the 'quote' function can manage here. A few questions, and I believe your the best placed man to answer.

So, the Mack. Clearly not under Julia. If William was genuinely innocent, upon discovering his prone wife, he would have moved her, checking for life and such. So removing sinister connotations, the crime scene photos could be the police trying to recreate the scene as William found it, not as they found it. But that doesn't really sound plausible.
As much as I like your colourised pics, the shot from the doorway is still ambiguous to me as the chair obscures the view. Likewise, the material under Julia's head looks different in the original shots. Now, don't for a minute think I'm criticising your efforts, they've shone light on the case, even if that light is dim. When analysing old photos there's only so much can be revealed. As for the missing poker, it needs explaining, but there's no way that's a murder weapon. And it's position seems natural, so again, did the authorities try to reset the scene? This seems like extraordinary incompetence, but keep in mind this happened in the Jeremy Bamber case. The ultimate answer may not be there, but there's still much light to shed on this case. I look forward to your updates.

**WallaceWackedHer** · 05-11-2020, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

Hi Wallace,
way more than the 'quote' function can manage here. A few questions, and I believe your the best placed man to answer.

So, the Mack. Clearly not under Julia. If William was genuinely innocent, upon discovering his prone wife, he would have moved her, checking for life and such. So removing sinister connotations, the crime scene photos could be the police trying to recreate the scene as William found it, not as they found it. But that doesn't really sound plausible.
As much as I like your colourised pics, the shot from the doorway is still ambiguous to me as the chair obscures the view. Likewise, the material under Julia's head looks different in the original shots. Now, don't for a minute think I'm criticising your efforts, they've shone light on the case, even if that light is dim. When analysing old photos there's only so much can be revealed. As for the missing poker, it needs explaining, but there's no way that's a murder weapon. And it's position seems natural, so again, did the authorities try to reset the scene? This seems like extraordinary incompetence, but keep in mind this happened in the Jeremy Bamber case. The ultimate answer may not be there, but there's still much light to shed on this case. I look forward to your updates.

The colourising is off, I realize the mistake now. What it is, is that I thought the thing under Julia's head was the mackintosh so made it grey. I think it is in fact part of her cardigan.

That isn't a crime scene replication that's the missing piece of iron, the dimensions match, get out a ruler and you'll see how tiny 12 x 1 inches is. Also if the bar was thicker it wouldn't fit under that gas fire (check how small the gap is there). The police have moved it after this shot and the charwoman hasn't seen it and thus assumed it to be missing.

I can point out many things they've moved and this is just between two photos like the bathroom shots.

The cash box was covered in the fingerprints of the police.

The photo from the doorway, I have the blown up HD photos in the Murder Casebook mag. The forensic expert first pointed out to me it's there in both. That is the jacket there beside her, the position matches in both shots, and the thing under Julia's head I had incorrectly colourised. It's her cardigan.

---

I think I know what has happened in this case anyway. In fact this is the answer I will stick by forever... I ALWAYS had some "that's weird" about anything I've ever thought (e.g. Johnstons seem good suspects but weird because Parry obv called), but this I'm settled with.

My forensic expert said the burning probably happened because Julia was shoved into the fireplace by an attacker.

My grandpa lived back in those times and he revealed to me something I didn't know... He said back in the days people had outhouses rather than indoor toilets, it was a common trick burglars would use to ask to use the toilet then undo the back gate etc. for a friend to come in.

I think Parry came in the back because he knew where the money was. In the front was a friend of Parry, a man close to Olivia Brine (a relative I think). Parry was at Brine's house but he knew her just because he was friends with her nephew William Denison who lived at a house nearby.

William Denison was not there at Brines (Harold was) they say. William is around Parry's age, he later got a criminal record for running an illegal gambling operation.

Nobody would keep a murder weapon for too long says my grandad, I think he's right. So I think Parry's car was there, he wasn't later given the things.

It should also be noted that Hignett's "shop" is not a shop, it's a house. Walter Hignett the owner posted ads in the newspaper and people would go to his house and get the stuff. He has a criminal record btw as a random factoid for you, for selling fuel without a license, he was charged for it... Parry says he went there to get a car battery. He told the Lloyds he'd been there to get a battery for his wireless radio.

...

I think Parry did this with William Denison and Julia's death is an accident...

Parry and Denison have driven down and parked on a road nearby.

Denison has gone to the front door claiming he's the business client and there's been a mix up in the taking of the telephone message. She lets him in.

He's used the outhouse trick to let Gordon in through the yard and back door. Gordon's told him whatever happens don't let Julia out here because she knows me and we'll be caught... Gordon's made noise however.

Julia notices the sound and goes up to investigate. Denison can't let her leave the room so he's shoved her into the fireplace (as said by my forensics), she's hit her head on the mantlepiece... In blown up photos you can actually see blood under the vase in the middle, and some a little below that... The jacket was on Julia as also told to me by forensics, and this has caught light at the same time.

This is how the burning happened. He's pulled her out of the fireplace by her hair causing her hair to come away from the back of her head almost.

In the kitchen photo (where the cash box is kept) my grandpa pointed out they have a closed fireplace but he can't see a glove anywhere. He said you'd always have kept one nearby like he does even now with his fireplace because touching the handle with a bare hand after its been on would scald your hand.

He thinks the mitten is from there. The poker is also from there and it's missing. Both Draper and Wallace acknowledge it's missing.

They've gone back in there with the poker and Denison has finished her off in a panic. He's soaked in blood. This explains the weird position... Because forensically it's suggested to us that Julia was down there in front of the chair - but she can't be doing anything with the fire from there as the gas tap is on the opposite side and you don't have to poke around coals etc with a gas fire... She's down there because she's dead. This is before the subsequent attack with the poker.

They bolt the front door so William or some other relative with a key can't just walk in on them. They turn off the lights so the house does not look conspicuous. They need to delay discovery of the crime for as long as possible because they need to get away and dispose of the weapon etc (which has to be removed because one of the two had touched it with a bare hand). One of the two is soaked in blood.

They've left via the back door. They're seen by Anne Parsons running away from the crime scene. They're then seen by Jane Smith. She lives in the house in between the Clubmoor cinema and Dr. Dunlop's house. THIS is where the bar (as in the poker) has been dumped, down this grid near Priory Road. Ada Cook on her call in to Wilkes said she heard a rumour the bar was dropped outside the cinema. Parkes says outside a doctor's house.

Denison's relatives have helped them cover.

Parry would never ever ever mention this alibi to anyone - evidently not even Lily Lloyd - despite it exonerating him. Instead he'd tell people like Goodman his alibi was arranging a birthday party with friends, or getting a car battery. Parry's dad said Gordon's alibi was fixing his car on Breck Road.

Parry has gone to the garage late at night when nobody would be around and paid Parkes 5 shillings (Parry is broke, and for perspective, Wallace paid 14 shillings a week for rent). He's turned up the next day with Denison when Parkes wouldn't be there (because he works night shifts) to see if anything has been said... They then never ever go back to that garage again.

...

That's who killed Julia Wallace.

P.S. Lily Pinches says the Allerton post office closed at 7 PM. It only was open because it was a mixed sweet shop thing. Parry said he went to Maiden Lane post office after 8.30 to buy cigarettes and a newspaper... That makes it seem likely it'd be open if they sold stuff there but someone ought to check this and see if they can find the opening hours of this post office.

Announcement

Wallace Case - "Missing" iron bar found in crime scene photos, and two "mackintoshes"

Wallace Case - "Missing" iron bar found in crime scene photos, and two "mackintoshes"

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment