Wallace Case - Latest major breakthrough (27th June 2020)

[John G]

Yes although the builder wiped it because it was dusty. But I'm contending if the bar is there it's NOT the murder weapon.

And we see what seems to be the poker there in the fender.

So in such case I'd suggest neither to be the weapon. Rather the iron bar rolled down the back into the crevice before the day of the murder and Julia used a poker from the living kitchen as a replacement for it to clean while the charwoman was on leave.

Possibly the killer had brought his own implement of murder, or something else in the home not reported missing or unfound (e.g. the dog lash with the handle) had been used.

I would expect a man going in with possible intent to murder to carry his own weapon. I'd expect it to be small and concealable like a hammer, and he would then take that away.

Rather than the attack definitely being frenzy etc. I see another possibility the killer was not satisfied she was dead until her skull had been opened up which may have taken a number of hits, as we see the marks on the back of her head are significant yet superficial to the naked eye and I can't see someone changing weapons midway through an attack.

Yes, I agree. The bar makes no sense as a murder weapon, and a poker was still present, so it couldn't have been that.

Thus, from the perspective of a killer other than Wallace, why use the bar? To begin with, they would risk getting caught when it was initially removed-it had been missing for some time. Moreover, why try and hide it on the premises, where it might have been discovered, rather than simply taking it with them when they left, and then disposing of it in a more secure location. Moreover, Sarah Draper doesn't actually describe it as a bar, she refers to a "piece of iron", so as a murder weapon it could have been cumbersome to wield.


From Wallace's perspective, he could simply have used a household implement, such as the poker, which he wouldn't have needed to remove or hide: when his fingerprints were found on it he simply says, "of course they are, it's my poker, I've used hundreds of times!" He could then argue that the actual perpetrator must have used gloves. Or with any luck, Parry may have used it during his many visits, thus potentially implicating him.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. It's interesting that your experts accept that the coat could have been around Julia's shoulders; that is my preferred theory, and the one that best explains how the Mac was burnt.

Regarding, the iron bar found in the crevice: if this was the murder weapon wouldn't it still be caked in dried blood, i.e when it was discovered? I'm assuming this was not the case as Goodman doesn't mention it.

Yes although the builder wiped it because it was dusty. But I'm contending if the bar is there it's NOT the murder weapon.

And we see what seems to be the poker there in the fender.

So in such case I'd suggest neither to be the weapon. Rather the iron bar rolled down the back into the crevice before the day of the murder and Julia used a poker from the living kitchen as a replacement for it to clean while the charwoman was on leave.

Possibly the killer had brought his own implement of murder, or something else in the home not reported missing or unfound (e.g. the dog lash with the handle) had been used.

I would expect a man going in with possible intent to murder to carry his own weapon. I'd expect it to be small and concealable like a hammer, and he would then take that away.

Rather than the attack definitely being frenzy etc. I see another possibility the killer was not satisfied she was dead until her skull had been opened up which may have taken a number of hits, as we see the marks on the back of her head are significant yet superficial to the naked eye and I can't see someone changing weapons midway through an attack.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Sterling work as usual Wallace.

[John G]

1) The thing about the bar is that it was down a crevice at the back against the wall which it was prised up from. So even with the removal of the gas fire it's possible it was missed.

Goodman said several officers corroborated the story to him.

2) Wallace's John Bull article has the assailant hold it as a shield after the first strike. It wouldn't work but it's possible someone attempted such a trick nontheless.

3) They agree with the idea of it being round her shoulders. Importantly it was also the immediate impression of Florence Johnston who is one of the only witnesses to see the original position of the jacket.

The police lied about moving it, they used the excuse the photographer must have "caught his foot on it" to move it. But we all know it was held up etc.

The idea of Wallace having done this himself has been heavily discredited by forensics. The idea he used the jacket in the manner described (as a shield) was termed "absurd" by this current expert.

Wearing it would work better but even still, and this was conceded by McFall, it would not completely protect the assailant. There would be blood upon his face, hair, hands (unless he wore gloves), lower trouser leg, ankles, and according to one of the experts also on the sleeves if blood had sprayed up inside the opening in the cuff.

However, answering a knock at the door which seems to be supported by the mug of tea on the kitchen fireplace (placed there to keep warm when answering an unexpected knock I suppose) does not rule out a hit job.

...

If the iron bar was used I am convinced this was not a planned murder. I do not see any killer arriving to murder this woman without bringing their own implement. I am also surprised she even got as far as lighting the fire in such a case - the attacker would have surely had ample time to strike before this, I'm sure Julia would have first lit the lamps above the fire before lighting the fire - both lamps if Wallace is truthful that they lit both when a visitor came - but it's possible.

But it seems possible nothing at all was missing from the home.

IF the iron bar was still there, I do not see why Julia would have brought the poker in. It may have been placed by police for photos to simulate its position but I have not seen this stated anywhere.

To my mind the iron bar is in the crevice or simply missing and had been since before the day of the killing, and that is why the little poker is there - as a substitute for cleaning purposes.

The house was rather cluttered though... As mentioned Wallace stated items as missing which were found like the wood chopper, so the notion something WAS taken but not noticed must not be ruled out. If not for Draper the fact the bar of iron was not there would not even be known to anyone.

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. It's interesting that your experts accept that the coat could have been around Julia's shoulders; that is my preferred theory, and the one that best explains how the Mac was burnt.

Regarding, the iron bar found in the crevice: if this was the murder weapon wouldn't it still be caked in dried blood, i.e when it was discovered? I'm assuming this was not the case as Goodman doesn't mention it.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Thanks for the comprehensive update, very interesting and I will spend some time digesting the information.

Just one or two observations. I've always been a bit sceptical about the iron bar supposedly discovered in the crevice. As I understand it, this is dependent on an uncorroborated account given to Goodman. Moreover, didn't the police remove and dismantle the fire?

Regarding, the burned coat. It's clearly a mystery how this happened, and it's certainly not going to happen if the assailant used the Mac as a shield, i.e. because in these circumstances either his, or Julia's body would be between the mac and the fire-unless there was some sort of dynamic struggle, where William was chasing Julia around the room, but that seems totally far fetched.

During the trial, it was suggested that Julia might have thrown the coat over her shoulders to go to the
door, and was then struck when she had it on. Do your experts regard this has a plausible theory?

1) The thing about the bar is that it was down a crevice at the back against the wall which it was prised up from. So even with the removal of the gas fire it's possible it was missed.

Goodman said several officers corroborated the story to him.

2) Wallace's John Bull article has the assailant hold it as a shield after the first strike. It wouldn't work but it's possible someone attempted such a trick nontheless.

3) They agree with the idea of it being round her shoulders. Importantly it was also the immediate impression of Florence Johnston who is one of the only witnesses to see the original position of the jacket.

The police lied about moving it, they used the excuse the photographer must have "caught his foot on it" to move it. But we all know it was held up etc.

The idea of Wallace having done this himself has been heavily discredited by forensics. The idea he used the jacket in the manner described (as a shield) was termed "absurd" by this current expert.

Wearing it would work better but even still, and this was conceded by McFall, it would not completely protect the assailant. There would be blood upon his face, hair, hands (unless he wore gloves), lower trouser leg, ankles, and according to one of the experts also on the sleeves if blood had sprayed up inside the opening in the cuff.

However, answering a knock at the door which seems to be supported by the mug of tea on the kitchen fireplace (placed there to keep warm when answering an unexpected knock I suppose) does not rule out a hit job.

...

If the iron bar was used I am convinced this was not a planned murder. I do not see any killer arriving to murder this woman without bringing their own implement. I am also surprised she even got as far as lighting the fire in such a case - the attacker would have surely had ample time to strike before this, I'm sure Julia would have first lit the lamps above the fire before lighting the fire - both lamps if Wallace is truthful that they lit both when a visitor came - but it's possible.

But it seems possible nothing at all was missing from the home.

IF the iron bar was still there, I do not see why Julia would have brought the poker in. It may have been placed by police for photos to simulate its position but I have not seen this stated anywhere.

To my mind the iron bar is in the crevice or simply missing and had been since before the day of the killing, and that is why the little poker is there - as a substitute for cleaning purposes.

The house was rather cluttered though... As mentioned Wallace stated items as missing which were found like the wood chopper, so the notion something WAS taken but not noticed must not be ruled out. If not for Draper the fact the bar of iron was not there would not even be known to anyone.

[John G]

Thanks for the comprehensive update, very interesting and I will spend some time digesting the information.

Just one or two observations. I've always been a bit sceptical about the iron bar supposedly discovered in the crevice. As I understand it, this is dependent on an uncorroborated account given to Goodman. Moreover, didn't the police remove and dismantle the fire?

Regarding, the burned coat. It's clearly a mystery how this happened, and it's certainly not going to happen if the assailant used the Mac as a shield, i.e. because in these circumstances either his, or Julia's body would be between the mac and the fire-unless there was some sort of dynamic struggle, where William was chasing Julia around the room, but that seems totally far fetched.

During the trial, it was suggested that Julia might have thrown the coat over her shoulders to go to the
door, and was then struck when she had it on. Do your experts regard this has a plausible theory?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I have been working closely with forensic experts with this case. The current expert I am in communication with is very senior in his field and worked as the chief medical examiner for various police forces across America. He was the lead forensic consultant for the CSI TV series and has also appeared on various episodes of The Forensic Files which appears to be a true crime documentary series, as well as the news.

His career for over 30 years has been to investigate suspicious deaths and he has testified in over 500 court cases regarding murders and such.

...

What we have now is a pretty major reversal. I have the crime scene photos here:

https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...-scene-photos/

And I will relay our latest communication. We have others but his opinions and analysis has changed as he has learned new facts through books and so on. So here's the latest:

...

Pretty intensive forensic update:

...

Q: Where was Julia in the room when she was struck on the left side of her head?

A: I recognize that McFall and others think she was left of the fireplace. What bothers me about that is the position of the feet. If the attacker hit her while on the left of the fireplace and then dragged her by the hair to her final position, he would then need to lift the feet/legs up and move/toss them to the right of the fireplace. That seems unnecessary during a frenzied attack.

...

Q: Where was the attacker in relation to her? And does the blood spray and location of blood fit with the left-front head wound (the most major wound) being caused by contact of the skull with the fireplace or mantle?

A: In my opinion there is no way the wound to the left is from the mantle (see below). I would think that some of the spatter is cast off from the weapon as it is being repeatedly struck on the head. But if that were the case it might be expected that there was spatter on the ceiling also. We may never know about that. But if the assailant was on the right side of Julia when she is on the ground the cast off would go up and back, towards the chair, violin case and photos. And this would also account for the spatter on the music sitting on the chair near the piano.

What is interesting about that is the position of the Mac on the right side of Julia. Did the assailant kneel on that while striking the final blows?



I note that there are multiple blows on the back of the head, just above the posterior hair line (#2 above), which mainly line up in a diagonal orientation from left lower to right upper. There also is a linear contusion/abrasion on the right upper back in the same orientation (#3). Above and behind the top of the right ear there are at least 2-3 impacts parallel to each other in a horizontal to slightly upper-posterior (back) to lower-anterior (front) orientation (#4). On the back portion of the right parietal scalp (#5) there appear to be at least 4 impacts. The one in the center may be concave (blue dot) which almost looks like the round striking surface of a hammer.

Very intriguing are the injuries to either side of the red dot. These seem to have a “tram track” appearance (two parallel linear abrasions separated by an area of clearing – especially the one to the left of the red dot). And in addition to that tram track, there appear to be repeating injuries along each abrasion perpendicular to the tram track. This makes me think of a surface such as a threaded pipe. However, not quite, as a threaded pipe would not cause tram track abrasions.

At this point I would like to clarify. Tram track injuries are classically contusions (bruises) caused by a cylindrical object striking the skin. The blood is pushed out on either side. What Julia has are abrasions (scrapes) due to a non-smooth object. Here is tram tracking from a bat:



Here are examples of abrasions due to a threaded pipe and probably a metal cable:




Now lets look at the injuries to the left side of the head (#1). And by “injuries” I mean just that. I do not think this was one blow. It was multiple impacts into the same area, which accounts for the fracturing of the skull over such a large area as this. Note that the position of the body in this photo would be very similar to how she was in the parlor. Similar extensive injury is not seen at the back or on the right. It is very difficult, nearly impossible, to cause such a large area of skin laceration (tearing) and skull fracture with one blow. I believe therefore that the large area on the left was inflicted at the end of the assault, when the head was still and the right side was supported by the floor.

...

Q: What type of implement do you think was used to cause the wounds described on Julia's skull?

A: The injuries are consistent with a heavy blunt object. The poker at the edge of the fireplace may be unlikely. It appears to have some irregular edges on the square end. If it is a poker it likely would not be a simple bar at the opposite end. Both of those surfaces would be nearly impossible to clean free of all blood/tissue traces. I think the bar is more likely and fits with the other evidence (if you accept something was dropped into the storm drain near the doctor’s house).

...

Q: DO you think the left-front head wound was the first wound and the one that killed her? If not where do you suppose she was when first hit and what part of her was first wounded?

A: As I state above, it was very unlikely that the wound to the left front was first. Rather it was last.

...

So this gives us a lot to think about here.

The skirt placquet where the three horizontal scorch marks were (all directly opposite her "private parts" it was said), I believe it was ASSUMED that it should be on Julia's left but looking at 1930s fashion I believe this to be a myth. The placquet was SOMETIMES worn on the left but it could essentially be anywhere and many times was directly down the front or even on the right or back. It could be anywhere...



I no longer see any reason to assume the skirt had been twisted unless there is evidence otherwise. The assumption it was on the left was simply a comment from a male detective talking about what he "knows of female fashion". Nothing more as I am aware. It should also be noted Julia regularly made her own clothing.

...

So to summarize though I recommend reading the above:

1) It's possible that NEITHER the poker nor iron bar was missing from the house. On the fender of the fireplace on the right you see a metal rod with a handle. Small and thin. I believe this to be the "missing" poker from the kitchen which Draper said had a handle.

Why is a poker with a gas fire?

The charwoman had not been to the house since the 7th of January about two weeks prior. The bar of iron according to Goodman was later found behind the fireplace in a crevice at the back.

With the charwoman away the cleaning duties would be up to Julia. The bar of iron has fallen down the back in the crevice so I believe JULIA has taken one of the two pokers from the living kitchen (the smaller one) into the parlour as a substitute for the iron bar to clear out under the gas fire.

So: The iron bar is in the crevice behind the fire, the small poker is on the fender. Image showing this object below.

http://www.williamherbertwallace.com...1/iron-bar.jpg

Keep in mind the crime scene was heavily contaminated by police. VERY poor preservation. One only has to compare the two bathroom shots to see how many things have been moved, and note that the crucial cash box was covered in officer fingerprints.

2) Julia was on the right side of the room when the attack began. This is crucial because the gas valve for the fireplace is on this side. With her on the left of the room she could not have been doing anything with this valve.

On the right, it's now possible she was regulating the fire or turning it off or something of that nature when struck. She may even have just lit the fireplace.

Another possibility is that she was sat in the lounger by the window and was getting up to cross the room when attacked.

3) The first strike was NOT the one that opened her skull up.

What happened is this:

Julia is on the right side of the room possibly crossing the room from the sofa or fiddling with the gas valve. Maybe even lighting the gas light above the mantle. She is then attacked.

The attack which may be a push or a hit sends her into the fireplace, her skirt is burned around the crotch - without evidence the skirt was twisted I believe the burned area was always to the front so it's like she's fallen in frontwards - and the jacket may have been burned in this accident also.

The jacket is still a mystery as it is still agreed upon that it would NOT protect any assailant in that attack from spray. But we know it was burned.

Julia is grabbed by her hair and possibly the back of her cardigan which was ripped and dumped in the position we find her in the crime scene photos, with the exception of one of her arms being hidden beneath her body.

The jacket is to JULIA'S right, as in the armchair (the one with the violin case) side of the room. It is later found under her shoulder barely visible but is recognized as a mackintosh by Wallace and PC Fred Williams, and possibly later detectives before it was moved.

As Julia is on the ground, as we see her in the crime scene photos, the left of her skull is exposed. The left frontish side (where the big gash is) is hit several times in the same spot with force opening up the skull cavity. A number of other hits are dotted around her head... All of these parts of her head are exposed to the attacker. Julia may not have been killed instantly but may instead have died in this position.

All experts I consulted have placed the attacker on the armchair side of the room when hitting Julia's head after she is downed facefirst as we see her.

...

So this is a huge turn in the facts and series of events in the attack.

More analysis needs to be done here to ascertain what has happened. I have asked to consider examples of weapons thst could cause these injuries. I randomly asked about a crowbar and spanner in my response when asking for possibly weapons because the crowbar is the weapon in Slemen's alleged Johnston confession (which also has Julia get up from the sofa), and the spanner is the murder weapon in Wallace's final John Bull article.

The mention of the pipe and metal cable made me think of the dog lash that Wallace claimed had been missing but I did not float that idea. Wallace claimed a few different items missing for 12+ months actually, that is not often reported in the retelling of the statement. The wood chopper he said was missing was found beneath the stairs or something.

...

For what it's worth the expert thinks Gordon Parry is behind this. Which is interesting since he must be intimately familiar with domestic homicide and there's a lot of suspicious things etc. so he must find the evidence away from Wallace compelling.

He thinks it is not possible William had time to do this but also does not think it was a hit job, he thinks William simply had nothing to do with it at all.

I am not sure anymore with these new details as the idea of a hired gun becomes more appealing. But that is his opinion.