** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is the Glasgow Herald report of the murder ...
https://news.google.com/newspapers?i...6366%2C2778816

Interesting that right from the start certain facets of the case were regarded as salient: that there was nothing to indicate how an assailant had entered the house, the amount missing was a very trivial one for a robbery, and no unusual noise was heard coming from the house.

This is their report when Wallace was arrested ...
https://news.google.com/newspapers?i...3161%2C4424456

Im already thinking of Sherlock Holmes famous quote about ‘the curious incident of the dog in the night time.’ I can’t recall hearing of the neighbours non-barking Pomeranian before?

....

it certainly didn’t look much like a robbery by any usual understanding of the word Nick. The cash box being put back onto the shelf obviously leads some to conclude that someone had tried to steal the cash without Julia’s knowledge and this has to be considered of course. Question arise though. Why, after such a paltry haul, was no attempt to search for cash or valuables made? Julia’s bag for example was on a chair and contained her purse but it was left untouched. Drawers were left unopened and unsearched but one cupboard door had been broken off. Why go to the trouble of breaking off the door to a random cupboard but don’t bother looking in drawers and unlocked cupboards and bags for cash and valuables? It’s been suggested that the thief/killer just panicked and fled after he’d killed Julia. The problem with this though for me is that he’d had time to rather pointlessly turn off lights and to bolt the front door. He appears to have taken care not to get any blood outside the parlour (apart from fingerprints it’s difficult to see why a robber would be bothered about getting blood on a wall or a door handle?) And this was after he’d killed a woman who could have recognised and described him in detail even if he’d stolen the cash without her knowledge. Some will agree and some won’t of course but this just doesn’t resemble a robbery to me. It resembles a premeditated murder where the killer has tried to give the impression of a robbery gone wrong.

My other point has been a bit controversial in the past but I’ll float it again (actually Caz might have raised this point before I did?) If Wallace was guilty was he trying to throw Parry or Marsden under the bus? When Wallace gave the police his list of people that Julia would have admitted to the house the people on the list mainly got name, address and occupation except for Marsden and Parry. Parry virtually had an essay. The cash box being put back points to someone that knew where it was kept of course. The fact that Wallace should have had more cash than he actually did points to someone that knew his routine. This wasn’t a be all and end all of a plan because he couldn’t have known whether Parry or Marsden would have alibi’s or not but it might have been a case of why not? If either of them had been unlucky enough not to have one then the police might have had a serious suspect on their hands.

[ColdCaseJury]

If Wallace was guilty was he trying to throw Parry or Marsden under the bus? When Wallace gave the police his list of people that Julia would have admitted to the house the people on the list mainly got name, address and occupation except for Marsden and Parry. Parry virtually had an essay. The cash box being put back points to someone that knew where it was kept of course. The fact that Wallace should have had more cash than he actually did points to someone that knew his routine. This wasn’t a be all and end all of a plan because he couldn’t have known whether Parry or Marsden would have alibi’s or not but it might have been a case of why not? If either of them had been unlucky enough not to have one then the police might have had a serious suspect on their hands.

If Wallace was guilty, he was an embittered, cynical and iniquitous man. He was quite prepared to ruin the lives of innocent young men. Of course, we don't know the relationship between Parry, Marsden, William and Julia - maybe there was more to it than we realise and this was his motivation; some kind of revenge. And don't forget he was also pointing a finger at all his closest friends and colleagues.

If Wallace was guilty, I do not believe his plan was to incriminate Parry - surely he could have done that a lot more effectively some other way. I suggest he belatedly realised that he had bungled the robbery because involving the cash box - and only the cash box - made him the prime suspect and forced him to give a long list of names. However, it does not explain the essay on Parry. Thoroughly contemptible.

If Wallace was innocent, he was racking his brains for who might be involved and he realised the cash box was the key to the identity of the killer and clearly suspected Parry the most. Hence, the essay on Parry. Of course, it is possible Parry was involved and not be the killer, but neither the police nor Wallace thought that far.

Either guilty or innocent, Wallace tells the police all about the cash box. I know many disagree, but my feeling here (and it is intuition, what else have we to go on?) is that this is a weak pointer to innocence.

[NickB]

But if a guilty Wallace did not originally intend to implicate Parry, why did he say that Julia would only admit acquaintances? Even the idea that she would also admit Qualtrough came later.

He is taken to be the ultimate authority on who she would admit, so he could have said she was so good natured she would admit anyone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Wallace was guilty, he was an embittered, cynical and iniquitous man. He was quite prepared to ruin the lives of innocent young men. Of course, we don't know the relationship between Parry, Marsden, William and Julia - maybe there was more to it than we realise and this was his motivation; some kind of revenge. And don't forget he was also pointing a finger at all his closest friends and colleagues.

If Wallace was guilty, I do not believe his plan was to incriminate Parry - surely he could have done that a lot more effectively some other way. I suggest he belatedly realised that he had bungled the robbery because involving the cash box - and only the cash box - made him the prime suspect and forced him to give a long list of names. However, it does not explain the essay on Parry. Thoroughly contemptible.

If Wallace was innocent, he was racking his brains for who might be involved and he realised the cash box was the key to the identity of the killer and clearly suspected Parry the most. Hence, the essay on Parry. Of course, it is possible Parry was involved and not be the killer, but neither the police nor Wallace thought that far.

Either guilty or innocent, Wallace tells the police all about the cash box. I know many disagree, but my feeling here (and it is intuition, what else have we to go on?) is that this is a weak pointer to innocence.

If Wallace was guilty we have to consider the question of why he didn’t make a more thorough job of making the house look like the scene of a bungled robbery of course. Why didn’t he pull out a few drawers and disturb the contents; take the cash from Julia’s purse; maybe even leave some blood smearing outside the parlour? Wallace was an intelligent man after all. And so, like most things connected to this case, there are two ways of looking at it. a) it doesn’t look a very convincing scene of a robbery and b) wouldn’t Wallace have made a better job of setting the scene?

Could Wallace have felt pressured by time if, for some reason, he hadn’t been able to kill Julia immediately after Close had left? Or was he pointing a finger (or two?) It’s always a case of if Wallace was guilty of course but I can’t help thinking about how we would all look at the case if there had been drawers pulled out and ransacked, a couple of cupboards opened and Julia’s purse emptied? Would Parry still be considered? Either way, we have what appears to have been a robbery specifically targeting a cash box that very people knew was there and no further attempt to make up for the massively disappointing haul.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But if a guilty Wallace did not originally intend to implicate Parry, why did he say that Julia would only admit acquaintances? Even the idea that she would also admit Qualtrough came later.

He is taken to be the ultimate authority on who she would admit, so he could have said she was so good natured she would admit anyone.

Good point Nick. Wallace was the only source for the suggestion that Julia would only have let in certain people when William was out.

[NickB]

I think 'ultimate authority' is a better description than 'only'. Other people had a view on it, but he knew best.

Also, if the accused admits something that appears to be against his interests it is given added weight. "Even he says that."

Another thing he could have done to promote a 'burglary gone wrong' was effect a forced entry.

[ColdCaseJury]

But if a guilty Wallace did not originally intend to implicate Parry, why did he say that Julia would only admit acquaintances? Even the idea that she would also admit Qualtrough came later. He is taken to be the ultimate authority on who she would admit, so he could have said she was so good natured she would admit anyone.

Ah! Amy Wallace told the Liverpool Post the day after the murder that Julia would admit strangers. See attached (and thanks for former poster WWH for sending me the clip some time ago). So, Amy and Wallace are almost contradicting each other. Herlock, puff on your pipe over this one! So, is this evidence he was trying to implicate an acquaintance? Or what? Wallace never helps himself, does he?

[Ven]

I'd trust Amy as far as far as i could kick her.

[Ven]

I know you don't like my Amy theories but i'd like to state again =


I would also like to repeat the following from page 253 of the trial -

Q. I notice that afterwards in your first statement you say: first of all, when I arrived at my house at 2.10 "my wife was then well and I had DINNER and left the hose", and again afterwards; "I entered my house and had TEA with my wife who was quite well". (This would have been at 6.05pm when he returned home after finishing work for the day)
A. Yes, except for the slight cold.

Then on Page 255 (so only a few minutes later) -
Q. Had you ever told your wife you were going out that night?
A. Certainly, we discussed it.
Q. You discussed it?
A. We discussed it at TEA time.
(NOT the previous night after chess, NOT at breakfast, NOT at DINNER at 2.10 BUT at TEA after work!)

William, in his own words clearly distinguishes between DINNER and TEA.

DINNER could now be considered the main meal you have at night HOWEVER, TEA could never be considered to be had at lunch time i.e. around midday...a "cup of tea" could be had at any time but TEA by itself was never Dinner/Lunch. In those days DINNER was the main meal had at UNCH time and in Munro's typed statement from William, William does refer to the midday/early afternoon meal as both Dinner or Lunch at different times. The meal he has when he finishes work for the day at around 6pm is always referred to as Tea.

If he didn't discuss it until TEA time then Amy could not possible have had the discussion she said she did with Julia.

[Ven]

This doesn't add o the mystery but ...

For some reason, i decided to analyse the info regarding Constable Rothwells' statements and the customer statements from the Tuesday afternoon, so here's the data, my analysis and some questions for you -

Worcester Drive runs Northeast up from Pennsylvania Road to Maiden Lane.
The T intersection of Worcester Dr and Maiden Lane is approx. 250 yards South of Townsend Lane
Rothwell initially said he saw William about 30 yards south of Townsend Lane.

11 Pennsylvania Road - Definitely here before 3.30 - I remember very distinctly he wore a dark overcoat.

15 Worcester Drive - About 3.30 - I am not certain what he wore

32 Pennsylvania Road - About 3.30 - no mention of clothing

5 Worcester Drive - 3.30 to 3.40 - "he always called about this time"- He usually wore a dark overcoat and a soft hat. I can't remember what he wore on this day.
40 Worcester Drive - about 3.45 - I didn't notice what he wore

17 Worcester Drive - about 4 - I don't remember what he wore

42 Pennsylvania Road - about 4 - I cannot say what he wore

8 Londonderry Road - 4 to 4.15 - although he called that day someone else must have answered the door - "I did not see him"
*6 Worcester Drive - 4 to 4.30 - I remember he had on a dark overcoat (see 2nd statement below from same address)

10 Worcester Drive - 4.30 to 4.45 - I do not remember whether he wore a raincoat or an overcoat

16 Londonderry Road - about 4.45 - I do not remember what he wore

8 Worcester Drive - after 4 - he wore an overcoat but I cannot say what colour it was

64 Glengarrif St - 5 to 5.15 - I cannot say definitely what he wore but I think it was an overcoat
4 Brookbridge Road - 5.45 - no mention of clothing

19 Eastman Rd - 5.30 to 5.50 (this is a fair distance north of Brookbridge Rd where the customer statement says William asked for the time. The clock said 6 but the customer said it was 15 minutes fast. I think he had a fawn raincoat on and a grey soft hat, but I cannot swear to that.
This address is also a fair distance from William's home, so to get home by 5.50 - 6pm would be difficult (1 km as the bird flies)...it's a 30 minute walk at least... and far enough from tramlines to make the time shorter.


*6 Worcester Drive - no time given = Mrs Caroline Keill - Latterly I did not open the door to him... My daughter usually pays him (Strange statement this one...she mentions seeing William on many occasions on Maiden Lane and often wiped his eyes with his handkerchief especially when cold as distinct from Rothwell's sleeve claim) - There is another statement above from this same address, Mr George Boyd, an unemployed jeweller, (perhaps a border, with a separate entrance? Although Google Street view would suggest otherwise...but still, they got two conflicting statements)

27 Missouri Road - Did not see William that day - Missouri is off Pennsylvania Rd
8 Pennsylvania Road - did not see William that day (Wife of a Policeman)


Based on these times William is all over the place (that or the timings claimed). Why would he walk up and down a street several times? (i.e., there is an hour's difference between numbers 5 (3.30 to 3.40) and 10 (4.30 to 4.45) Worcester Drive with No. 8 halfway between at 4pm.) Either way, it would appear that he was not on or near Maiden Lane between 3.20 and 4pm. He would have been on Maiden Lane for a less than a minute as he walked down from Worcester Drive to Londonderry Road.
Even on Londonderry Road, No's 8 and 16 are only 5 townhouses away from each other but at least a 30 minute difference.

Statement by Constable James Rothwell (a customer of Williams)-
Left Home for work on his bicycle @ 3.30 to be at work by 3.45
Path to work - 30 Craigs Rd, head north up Antrim St, left at Finvoy Rd, right into Knoclaid Rd then veer left onto Maiden Laen heading north up to Townsend Lane...and then another 10 minutes or so to get to work in Anfield Road by 3.45
Saw William heading South along Maiden Lane, 30 yards from Townsend Lane. Rothwell would have been at this position at approx. 3.32 to 3.35 - this from his statement dated 30/1
"I saw the accused about 30 yards distant coming along Maiden Lane." (from Trial transcript) This could mean he saw him anywhere along Maiden Lane ... he was simply 30 yards from when he first saw him or was William 30 yards from Townsend Lane (which William would not have been).
William was wearing "...a light fawn coat or mackintosh." - This statement dated 20th Feb (Evidence interview) Mr Scholefield Allen was representing the accused. On being re-examined by the prosecutor Rothwell said "I made a report to my Superior Officer on the night of the murder." (This would have been done after he found out about the murder whilst still at work.) This re-examination was objected to by Mr Scholefield Allen. There are no notes as to why and I have not seen this alleged Report.

Rothwell's statement on the 30th January said William's head was down and his hands were in his pockets of his coat (If his head was down and he was wearing a hat how could Rothwell see that he was or had been crying ?)
In Rothwell's evidentiary interview on 20th February, he states that William was dabbing his eyes with his sleeves. Would you dab your eyes with a plastic/rubber mackintosh? William had stated that because it had stopped raining he changed at dinner time to his (darker) overcoat.

So... a couple of questions -
Are there any other statements from customers before 3.20pm? This would help track William's path a bit better. A few from say, 2.30pm.
Was Rothwell's report to his Superior Officer on the night of the murder found?
Can it be found?

Summary -
The timings claimed by customers , for the most, part are obviously out (I'm not sure when these statements were taken as it is not noted on the statements).
Was it the Prosecution or Defence that sought the statements?
Rothwell may have mentioned that he was a customer of William and so asked to claim that he saw him.

At the end of the day, whatever is decided doesn't really change anything , except that the police tried to implicate William.
It really doesn't matter what coat he was wearing in the afternoon. Although ALL the customer statements says he acted as per normal. No sign of tears and even most jovial.

[Herlock Sholmes]

She doesn’t actually say that Julia was in the habit of opening doors to strangers. Just that William had told her not too more than once. Amy is then suggesting that Julia’s kindness might have made her let in a stranger in on that particular night.

The last paragraph contains what must be a mis-print. “flying into the house...” must mean “flying out of the house...”

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know you don't like my Amy theories but i'd like to state again =


I would also like to repeat the following from page 253 of the trial -

Q. I notice that afterwards in your first statement you say: first of all, when I arrived at my house at 2.10 "my wife was then well and I had DINNER and left the hose", and again afterwards; "I entered my house and had TEA with my wife who was quite well". (This would have been at 6.05pm when he returned home after finishing work for the day)
A. Yes, except for the slight cold.

Then on Page 255 (so only a few minutes later) -
Q. Had you ever told your wife you were going out that night?
A. Certainly, we discussed it.
Q. You discussed it?
A. We discussed it at TEA time.
(NOT the previous night after chess, NOT at breakfast, NOT at DINNER at 2.10 BUT at TEA after work!)

William, in his own words clearly distinguishes between DINNER and TEA.

DINNER could now be considered the main meal you have at night HOWEVER, TEA could never be considered to be had at lunch time i.e. around midday...a "cup of tea" could be had at any time but TEA by itself was never Dinner/Lunch. In those days DINNER was the main meal had at UNCH time and in Munro's typed statement from William, William does refer to the midday/early afternoon meal as both Dinner or Lunch at different times. The meal he has when he finishes work for the day at around 6pm is always referred to as Tea.

If he didn't discuss it until TEA time then Amy could not possible have had the discussion she said she did with Julia.

Might not Wallace have mentioned it earlier but they discussed it at tea time? If I recall correctly didn’t Wallace say that he’d decided to go after discussing it with Julia?

[Ven]

Hmmm .. give me details Herlock, there is nothing to say he discussed it before TEA

[Ven]

Also, dismiss what William said after the murder because no-one could co-oberate it

[Ven]

LOL, Iet's get back to the facts, the use of Dinner or Tea