** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[NickB]

Thanks for the update.

Mark Russell also changed his mind to guilty before (or perhaps while) writing his 'Checkmate' book, but I never heard why. When I bought his book I was hoping for a 'Eureka!' moment.

I wouldn't describe any of those 3 reasons as definitely clinching it, but if there is a tendency for people looking into the case in detail to change their view from innocent to guilty that might be an argument in itself.

In a way I don't want a consensus to form because the idea that his guilt is finely balanced (in my mind anyway) is part of the case's attraction!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well I didn’t expect to be posing on a Wallace thread again but I’m only posting for a specificreason. Many of you will remember two former Wallace case posters on here… American Sherlock and WallaceWackedHer (both no longer members) WWH went on to create the superb site The Julia Wallace Murder Foundation. He continued to research the case in depth with other contributors (American Sherlock being one) I recommend the site to anyone.

https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/

American Sherlock always favoured a guilty Wallace (like myself) but may have moved away from that solution (I’m unsure) over the years and WallaceWackedHer became firmly convinced of Wallace’s innocence. Sadly, debates became, shall we say, heated?

Recently I looked on the site and got the impression that WallaceWackedHer’s position might have changed but I didn’t have time to read enough so I could have got a mistaken impression so I emailed American Sherlock. He replied to tell me that both he and WallaceWackedHer are now convinced of Wallace’s guilt. He quoted 3 of the reasons for the change of position:


1. The Benzidine test was not a reliable means of testing in terms of accuracy, was rarely used or presented in trials at the time and was not widely known to be something that could catch a criminal out. Wallace would have known this.

2. The chess start time as per a notice board that is on the site was 7:30, not 7:45. If a caller who read the board based their actions on that (Parry for example), then they would see this and a stake out time of Wallace leaving his house at 7:15 or later on the 19th wouldn’t make sense. Also there have been arguments that Wallace could not have been late at all, even a minute for the 7:45 start time. He himself says he arrived there at 7:45 so if the actual time was 7:30, clearly this rule was not “strictly adhered to” as many have claimed.

3. The locks pantomime; It’s hard to say for sure but all sources I’ve found or Calum contacted can offer no reason besides chance for the locks issue that night; promises by Antony to show otherwise were never followed up on. So we are to believe it is just a coincidence on this one very night his wife is murdered he has issues getting in enough to make a fuss so the neighbors come over and discover the body with him? I don’t think so.

The emboldening is my own as this is a point that I used to make strongly and regularly.

I don’t think that the case will ever be conclusively solved. There will always be doubt. I haven’t read anything about the case for a few years now so I’m totally rusty but it will always be an intriguing case. Apart from the ripper case no murder case can touch it as far as mystery and intrigue is concerned in my opinion.

[etenguy]

interesting. i lean toward wallace did it and staged the telephone call. but i dont rule out a known or unknown intruder. what motive would marsden have?

In a nutshell - there is a theory that has Marsden and/or Parry committing the murder as both worked with Wallace, both had visited his house, both knew where Wallace kept the cashbox, both had been caught stealing from the Pru and the possible motive was money.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

I think there were a few Qualtroughs in Liverpool, but no R M Qualtrough to my knowledge. However, an interesting point is that Marsden had a client called R J Qualtrough. (Marsden was a colleague of Wallace at the Pru and a person of interest if Wallace was innocent).

interesting. i lean toward wallace did it and staged the telephone call. but i dont rule out a known or unknown intruder. what motive would marsden have?

[etenguy]

interesting. i thought that name was never found in the area.

Hi Abby

I think there were a few Qualtroughs in Liverpool, but no R M Qualtrough to my knowledge. However, an interesting point is that Marsden had a client called R J Qualtrough. (Marsden was a colleague of Wallace at the Pru and a person of interest if Wallace was innocent).

[Abby Normal]

Re. the choosing of the name Qualtrough, it’s interesting (or maybe not) to note a William Qualtrough being listed in the Liverpool Phone Directory for 1930. His entry as printed in the Directory reads as follows……..

”Qualtrough Wm, Joiner, 74 Windermere st…..Anfield 1661”

For what it may be worth Windermere Street is approximately half a mile from the infamous Telephone Kiosk.

interesting. i thought that name was never found in the area.

[Sherlock Houses]

Re. the choosing of the name Qualtrough, it’s interesting (or maybe not) to note a William Qualtrough being listed in the Liverpool Phone Directory for 1930. His entry as printed in the Directory reads as follows……..

”Qualtrough Wm, Joiner, 74 Windermere st…..Anfield 1661”

For what it may be worth Windermere Street is approximately half a mile from the infamous Telephone Kiosk.

[ColdCaseJury]

Just thought I would reacquaintance myself with the case. What is the difference, in 1930s terms, between bolting a door and locking a door? a bolt these days means a manual slider, so back then, if it meant the same thing, simply using a key does not undo the bolt, so a using key only is useless, did they mean by unlocking the door it unbolted it? Bolting a door these days means that someone from the inside had to release a stoppage to allow entry. I'm confused.

Ven, if memory serves, you are correct about the Wallaces door:

UNLOCKED, UNBOLTED = Anyone can enter
LOCKED, UNBOLTED = Key holder can enter
BOLTED = Only someone from the inside can open the door

I believe a latch or nib was depressed to bolt or flicked-up (to release) i.e. it was not a sliding bolt. However, it was a sliding bolt on the yard gate.

Wallace always stated that the front door was bolted and that's why he could not enter. As Julia would always left the front door unbolted when he was out, he suspected someone might be inside (alternatively: he was lying to create that impression).

[Ven]

Just thought I would reacquaintance myself with the case. What is the difference, in 1930s terms, between bolting a door and locking a door? a bolt these days means a manual slider, so back then, if it meant the same thing, simply using a key does not undo the bolt, so a using key only is useless, did they mean by unlocking the door it unbolted it? Bolting a door these days means that someone from the inside had to release a stoppage to allow entry. I'm confused.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, WWH's website is back up. He just had to update his SSL certificate

Thanks Ven. I thought that it was a tech issue at my end.

Sorry I’m so late responding to your post btw.

[Ven]

Hi Herlock, WWH's website is back up. He just had to update his SSL certificate

[Herlock Sholmes]

Under those circumstances, I think it would be reasonable to suggest the burned hole might have been from a previous accident; Julia was poorly dressed, after all.

I've dug out the statements, and it is clear why there is some confusion on this matter!

ROBERTS (ANALYST REPORT): At the bottom of the plaquet there were three horizontal burns...

SGT BAILEY (DEPOSITION): The skirt was burned at the front as then worn... as far as I could observe there were no signs of burning on the underskirt

ROBERTS (TRIAL): The skirt is burned right through [but agrees it was done by the fire on the night of the murder; and no mention of three burns]

So, were there three rectangular burns on the skirt - ones that burnt right through? Was there no burning on the underskirt, or just Bailey didn't see any? I wonder if the burning action was like a hot iron left on clothes rather than a naked flame. It would appear to be that way if there were three horizontal burns. As usual, we're left frustrated as there is no detailed description of the skirt burns or condition of the underskirt.

Yes, it’s annoying that we are without a more accurate description of the skirt. All of the options that you mention are valid. Do we know why Bailey felt that it had been done that night.

Btw I just tried to get onto WWH’s site but a privacy warning came up and so I didn’t bother. I wonder why that happened as it’s never happened before and it’s not happening on other websites.

[ColdCaseJury]

So if there was a hole (and it has to remain an if until it can be confirmed or not) plus the lines isn’t it possible that the skirt had been burnt at an earlier time? Perhaps Julia was drying it on a chair in front of the fire and is slipped from the chair onto the fire or might Julia have dropped it?

Under those circumstances, I think it would be reasonable to suggest the burned hole might have been from a previous accident; Julia was poorly dressed, after all.

I've dug out the statements, and it is clear why there is some confusion on this matter!

ROBERTS (ANALYST REPORT): At the bottom of the plaquet there were three horizontal burns...

SGT BAILEY (DEPOSITION): The skirt was burned at the front as then worn... as far as I could observe there were no signs of burning on the underskirt

ROBERTS (TRIAL): The skirt is burned right through [but agrees it was done by the fire on the night of the murder; and no mention of three burns]

So, were there three rectangular burns on the skirt - ones that burnt right through? Was there no burning on the underskirt, or just Bailey didn't see any? I wonder if the burning action was like a hot iron left on clothes rather than a naked flame. It would appear to be that way if there were three horizontal burns. As usual, we're left frustrated as there is no detailed description of the skirt burns or condition of the underskirt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Like your reference to The Second Stain. I confess I cannot remember the exact description of the skirt burns. I thought it was scorched, making three parallel lines rather than burnt through. If it was an actual hole (let say at least 1cm in diameter) in the material then, yes, you would expect a matching burn mark on the underwear. If the former is correct, however, it suggests the skirt came in contact with a hot fire surround (the Sunbeam had vertical bars at its bottom).

I can’t recall it exactly either so it’s possible that my memory is playing me false but I have a strong feeling that I’ve read somewhere in the case that the burning on Julia’s skirt had gone into a hole. The reason that I’m ‘remembering’ it is because I wondered at the time why there was no mark on underskirt. I do recall mention of the parallel lines though which pointed to contact with the bars of the fire. So if there was a hole (and it has to remain an if until it can be confirmed or not) plus the lines isn’t it possible that the skirt had been burnt at an earlier time? Perhaps Julia was drying it on a chair in front of the fire and is slipped from the chair onto the fire or might Julia have dropped it?

[ColdCaseJury]

Do you think it’s strange that there was no mark on Julia’s underskirt that corresponded to the hole burnt through on her skirt? It might be nothing of course.

Like your reference to The Second Stain. I confess I cannot remember the exact description of the skirt burns. I thought it was scorched, making three parallel lines rather than burnt through. If it was an actual hole (let say at least 1cm in diameter) in the material then, yes, you would expect a matching burn mark on the underwear. If the former is correct, however, it suggests the skirt came in contact with a hot fire surround (the Sunbeam had vertical bars at its bottom).