** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is a definite . But I’m having problems bringing up the same info on Qualtrough concentrations on the internet ,that I know I had found a few years back

It would be great if you could find it Moste.

[moste]

It would be great if you could find it Moste.

I know! .How does this business work of closing down a thread, I mean, like what happened with the A6 stuff years ago , that one was re opened as ‘A6 rebooted, but previous threads had volumes of valuable photo’s , drawings , diagrams, etc, entered by Highly acclaimed posters.So all contents were lost .A thread presumably closed due to two or three troublemakers. I suppose it could be argued, posters have the option of saving important info, to safeguard against loss due to thread shut down.I must have been out of the loop when the last Wallace thread was removed. What happened?
Anyhow I’ll have another go on the 1930s Qualtrough concentrations.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know! .How does this business work of closing down a thread, I mean, like what happened with the A6 stuff years ago , that one was re opened as ‘A6 rebooted, but previous threads had volumes of valuable photo’s , drawings , diagrams, etc, entered by Highly acclaimed posters.So all contents were lost .A thread presumably closed due to two or three troublemakers. I suppose it could be argued, posters have the option of saving important info, to safeguard against loss due to thread shut down.I must have been out of the loop when the last Wallace thread was removed. What happened?
Anyhow I’ll have another go on the 1930s Qualtrough concentrations.

As far as I’m aware no Wallace thread has been removed Moste? I can still see 9 Wallace-related threads.

[Gordon]

I know! .How does this business work of closing down a thread, I mean, like what happened with the A6 stuff years ago , that one was re opened as ‘A6 rebooted, but previous threads had volumes of valuable photo’s , drawings , diagrams, etc, entered by Highly acclaimed posters.So all contents were lost .A thread presumably closed due to two or three troublemakers. I suppose it could be argued, posters have the option of saving important info, to safeguard against loss due to thread shut down.I must have been out of the loop when the last Wallace thread was removed. What happened?
Anyhow I’ll have another go on the 1930s Qualtrough concentrations.

Surely there’s a difference between “closing” a thread and deleting it, moste? For instance, the previous Wallace thread was closed, but it’s still there, with Mrs. Wallace’s name misspelled “Julie.” So the old A6 thread may still be there too.

Or it might be in some Archive, depending how old it was. The Admins have “redone” Casebook in the past. For instance, I’m not such a newbie as my post count suggests. I posted quite a bit about the Ripper way back around the 2000s, but registrations were redone--twice if I remember correctly--so my personal history was lost. I think there’s stuff archived somewhere. Somebody will know.

[NickB]

I think Wallace has a more difficult problem getting rid of the weapon and bloodied gloves than anyone else, because the police will know where to look.

[moste]

Surely there’s a difference between “closing” a thread and deleting it, moste? For instance, the previous Wallace thread was closed, but it’s still there, with Mrs. Wallace’s name misspelled “Julie.” So the old A6 thread may still be there too.

Or it might be in some Archive, depending how old it was. The Admins have “redone” Casebook in the past. For instance, I’m not such a newbie as my post count suggests. I posted quite a bit about the Ripper way back around the 2000s, but registrations were redone--twice if I remember correctly--so my personal history was lost. I think there’s stuff archived somewhere. Somebody will know.

Thanks for that, Gord.

[etenguy]

I’m not stating a certainty of course but this raises a question for me. Could the singeing have occurred at an earlier date? Julia was no Jackie Onassis when it came to clothing so would she have been too fussy about wearing a singed skirt around the house?

Hi Herlock

That's an interesting question.

There appears to be no doubt that the mackintosh was singed in the front parlour, fragments were found on the hearth rug and no where else in the house.

The police analyst also concluded that the skirt had been burnt recently, based on the friability of the material at the edge of the burn which would have rubbed off easily.

I had always thought it likely both articles were singed during the same incident as a result of the above, but I had never picked up on an unblemished underskirt - that is odd.

[jmenges]

The original A-6 thread was not deleted, but lost in The Great Server Crash of 2008 along with the rest of the threads on the boards.

JM

[ColdCaseJury]

Can we assume that the body was moved Antony and that she couldn’t have landed where she was found. Do you think that there is at least the possibility that Julia might not have been moved?

Herlock, I suggest the key bits of evidence here are:
(a) bloodstain in front of the chair
(b) blood cast-off in the corner of the room by the chair and on the violin case resting on the chair
(c) singed skirt and mackintosh

Assume that Julia was standing to the right of the fire (where her feet were found) when the first blow was struck. She falls towards the chair, perhaps slumped against the hot fire, her head by the foot of the chair (accounting for the blood stain). I think another, hard blow was now struck (bloodstain and cast-off), perhaps two. The burning of skirt and mackintosh means the killer pulls Julia into the centre of the room, almost in an arc, leaving her feet more or less where they are.

I get your points about the skirt - they are plausible. But, assuming the mackintosh was burnt during the assault, it is difficult to see how it ignited if Julia fell in the position she was found - there was no need for the assailant to go right near the fire.

If she fell in the position she was found, how do we account for (a)-(c)? And if she was moved, the probability of blood transfer increases greatly, I suggest, especially if the mackintosh was taken off or discarded (due to burning) prior to any movement.

[moste]

The original A-6 thread was not deleted, but lost in The Great Server Crash of 2008 along with the rest of the threads on the boards.

JM

Thanks for the info.some threads I’m trying to access from the past though say ‘Topic Closed’,with no reason given .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, I suggest the key bits of evidence here are:
(a) bloodstain in front of the chair
(b) blood cast-off in the corner of the room by the chair and on the violin case resting on the chair
(c) singed skirt and mackintosh

Assume that Julia was standing to the right of the fire (where her feet were found) when the first blow was struck. She falls towards the chair, perhaps slumped against the hot fire, her head by the foot of the chair (accounting for the blood stain). I think another, hard blow was now struck (bloodstain and cast-off), perhaps two. The burning of skirt and mackintosh means the killer pulls Julia into the centre of the room, almost in an arc, leaving her feet more or less where they are.

I get your points about the skirt - they are plausible. But, assuming the mackintosh was burnt during the assault, it is difficult to see how it ignited if Julia fell in the position she was found - there was no need for the assailant to go right near the fire.

If she fell in the position she was found, how do we account for (a)-(c)? And if she was moved, the probability of blood transfer increases greatly, I suggest, especially if the mackintosh was taken off or discarded (due to burning) prior to any movement.

Ok, here goes....

What if Julia is standing in front of the fire...let’s say the middle....holding the mackintosh. Wallace strikes her and she lands where she was found (perhaps with her feet nearer the centre of the fireplace?) but as soon as the blow lands she drops the mackintosh onto the fire. Wallace sees it smouldering. He drops the weapon near the chair (causing the bloodstain) so that he can pick up the mackintosh which is beneath her legs (which he moves to the position that they were found in) and put out the smouldering. The blood in the chair and on the violin case just come from the rest of the blows.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The original A-6 thread was not deleted, but lost in The Great Server Crash of 2008 along with the rest of the threads on the boards.

JM

I hope that you’re not concealing vital evidence Jon

[moste]

Herlock, I suggest the key bits of evidence here are:
(a) bloodstain in front of the chair
(b) blood cast-off in the corner of the room by the chair and on the violin case resting on the chair
(c) singed skirt and mackintosh

Assume that Julia was standing to the right of the fire (where her feet were found) when the first blow was struck. She falls towards the chair, perhaps slumped against the hot fire, her head by the foot of the chair (accounting for the blood stain). I think another, hard blow was now struck (bloodstain and cast-off), perhaps two. The burning of skirt and mackintosh means the killer pulls Julia into the centre of the room, almost in an arc, leaving her feet more or less where they are.

I get your points about the skirt - they are plausible. But, assuming the mackintosh was burnt during the assault, it is difficult to see how it ignited if Julia fell in the position she was found - there was no need for the assailant to go right near the fire.

If she fell in the position she was found, how do we account for (a)-(c)? And if she was moved, the probability of blood transfer increases greatly, I suggest, especially if the mackintosh was taken off or discarded (due to burning) prior to any movement.

Even forensic back in those days would undoubtedly have been able to say one way or another whether the rain coat and/or her skirt was burned by the gas fire ,by evidence of residual material charring on or below the radiation porcelain bars/tubes of the said gas appliance.
If there was an absence of said ashy material, it can be assumed that either the coat was already scorched, as HS, mentioned, or that the killer cleaned up this evidence.( highly unlikely)
On the blood spatter notion. It was discussed some time back with WWH, (where did he go?)who ,if I recall disagreed with Herlock about using the raincoat as a shield. I on the other hand believe it to be the perfect answer . After the initial heavy blow, which likely killed her instantly, by kneeling by the felled body and holding the coat as a bullfighter does with his cape, it is not unreasonable to think that Wallace may rain down any number of blows without so much as a blot landing on his person. The only question is, in Wallace’s mind, does he regard (when considering the future investigation,)excessive blows to be more in keeping with a burglar/maniac attack, or himself as an aggrieved husband?I would venture, the former.

[NickB]

Moste, The A6 threads you refer to are still there. The main one before the rebooted thread, called simply 'a6 murder' is closed but not deleted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even forensic back in those days would undoubtedly have been able to say one way or another whether the rain coat and/or her skirt was burned by the gas fire ,by evidence of residual material charring on or below the radiation porcelain bars/tubes of the said gas appliance.
If there was an absence of said ashy material, it can be assumed that either the coat was already scorched, as HS, mentioned, or that the killer cleaned up this evidence.( highly unlikely)
On the blood spatter notion. It was discussed some time back with WWH, who ,if I recall disagreed with Herlock about using the raincoat as a shield. I on the other hand believe it to be the perfect answer . After the initial heavy blow, which likely killed her instantly, by kneeling by the felled body and holding the coat as a bullfighter does with his cape, it is not unreasonable to think that Wallace may rain down any number of blows without so much as a blot landing on his person. The only question is, in Wallace’s mind, does he regard (when considering the future investigation,)excessive blows to be more in keeping with a burglar/maniac attack, or himself as an aggrieved husband?

I’ll just add the interesting fact Moste that when he wrote his John Bull articles Wallace himself suggests that the killer might have used the mackintosh as a shield. Now surely an innocent Wallace wouldn’t have suspected that Julia would have had such an enemy that would have wanted to murder her? Alternatively then would someone who killed her on the spur of the moment during a bungled robbery have taken the time to have used ‘protection?’ It seems unlikely in the extreme to me? Or was this Wallace gloating about how clever he was?