** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[Herlock Sholmes]

There was something else that the police analyst stated which I found interesting. It related to the money found in the jar on the mantelpiece upstairs. One of the notes had blood on it. He stated that the blood stain appeared to be from something like a thumb with blood on it and had been placed on the note on the 20th January or no more than two days before that.

Do you think that suggests the money taken from the cash box was transferred to the jar on the night of the murder? If so, that does suggest to me that Wallace moved the money to suggest it had been stolen. Wallace did state to PC Frederick Williams that he changed in that room that evening before going out and may have left the light on. He wouldn't want to have been caught with the money on his person. Since the blood stain was on the inside of the notes, he may not have seen it (the blood stain tailed off as it reached the top of the note). I don't think anyone else, such as a burglar, would move the money (if indeed it was moved that night).

Those notes were a frustrating clue Eten. Obviously if a thief had handled them he’d have stolen them so where did the blood come from? I find it hard to believe that Wallace would have taken cash from the cash box with bloodied hands before transferring them upstairs. Firstly it implies a level of carelessness which seems uncharacteristic of Wallace and secondly I’d have to ask why he didn’t simply put the notes into his wallet; adding them to the money that he might already have had, which would have been less suspicious than having the police discover an amount upstairs equal to the amount stolen?

Might Wallace have been unaware of some blood on his finger/thumb when he took the money from the cash box? It’s possible but he would perhaps have been fortunate not to transfer any blood onto the box. Might it have been transferred by Wallace or a police officer post mortem? I just think that this is one of those clues that we can never get further forward with. Frustratingly.

[NickB]

My source for the police sharing this theory is Mark, page 63, where he says Moore thought that after committing the murder Wallace took the notes from the cash-box and placed them in the jar.

Mark questions why Wallace would have done this anyway, knowing to that the police would search the whole house.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, a few points and questions:

(A) Which way is Julia facing? If she's facing into the room then the mackintosh will not be fireside - how is she holding it?
(B) Julia facing the mirror, blow strikes back of head, she falls backwards, mackintosh falls on fire (?)
(C) A blood-soaked cylindrical iron bar will leave a rectangular stain not the observed pool of blood. If it did create the stain, the bar must have been drenched in blood, suggesting heavy transfer onto the gloves and mackintosh (if he is wearing it) and on his sleeves or arms (if it's a shield)
(D) If (B) is correct, how does the mackintosh become trapped beneath her legs? And are you assuming that the skirt singe was caused some other time?
(E) The head is much nearer the piano and door, yet almost all of the cast-off is the corner. I think this is consistent with one or two blows on her head by the chair and possibly one in the centre of the room

I suggest the crime scene points to the body having been moved, increasing substantially the risk of some blood transfer. This does not eliminate Wallace, of course, but I think it focuses our minds on how he did it with none. I think most people will say gloves, but this is now an extra item to be carried (probably blood stained and risking secondary transfer) and disposed of.

BTW, it is possible all subsequent blows rained down when Julia's head was by the chair. It could be as few as two, after one blow that felled her. If the body was moved and then, say, three or four more blows were struck that would suggest a highly personal attack. It is possible that the body was moved (only to stop the burning) and no more blows were struck. I'm not sure that possibility has been considered, largely because MacFall suggested 11 in a frenzy (after originally suggesting 3 or 4).

To be honest Antony I didn’t hold out much hope for my ‘explanation’ of the blood near to the chair and I’m certainly not saying that she couldn’t have been moved after the first blow. As a fellow Holmes fan you will remember the story of The Second Stain where Holmes had to explain how a carpet soaked through with blood didn’t mark the floor below. Of course we know that the carpet had been moved but Julia’s underskirt hadn’t. It’s one of those niggles that keep returning to me. How could Julia’s skirt have burned through into a hole and yet her underskirt was completely unmarked. If others tell me that this is possible then fair enough, I’m not going to spend time arguing the point but personally I’d have thought that it was close to impossible. I think that it at least raises the possibility that Julia’s skirt was burnt on an earlier occasion but of course this still doesn’t eliminate Julia being moved after death.

.....

Its been suggested of course that Julia was sitting in the chair when the first blow was struck. If so it’s even harder to see how the mackintosh and her skirt was burnt as the killer would most likely have had to have been standing in front of the fire (as I’d think it likely that the killer picked up the weapon immediately prior to the first blow as opposed to carrying it for any length of time?) Therefore the blow would have caused her to have fallen away from the fire and toward the sideboard or door. Even if the killer stood in front of a seated Julia it’s difficult to see how she’d ended up on the fire. So I think that, as you said, Julia was standing when the first blow was struck and the blood pooling is best explained by Julia’s head meaning that the body was moved.

.......

So if the body was moved can we assume that it was because Julia’s skirt was burning? It’s possible but the underskirt bugs me Could the killer simply have moved Julia to the centre of the room to give himself more room? Without checking, how close to the chair was the blood? If it was fairly close then Julia’s head must also have been close to the chair hindering the swing of the killer’s arm?

[NickB]

Mark: 'He then pulled the body away from the fire and stamped out the burning mackintosh.'

He also suggested the cushion could have been placed under the head to muffle the sounds. This may have been another reason.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mark: 'He then pulled the body away from the fire and stamped out the burning mackintosh.'

He also suggested the cushion could have been placed under the head to muffle the sounds. This may have been another reason.

I recall someone suggesting that the mackintosh might also have been used to cushion the noise but I’m not sure who it was.

[ColdCaseJury]

QUALTROUGH - THE NAME AND IT'S DISTRIBUTION

I'm not a genealogist, but I checked ancestry. Recall, Wallace lived in Millom, Cumberland (as it was then) between 1878 and 1888. So, we're interested in the number of Quatrough's living in Millom or Cumberland during those years. As a control, we can compare with the number living in Liverpool.

Ancestry delivers the following results based on its census data:

Liverpool, Lancashire: 1861 = 1 1871 = 0 1881 = 2, 1891 = 0, 1901 = 6

Cumberland (including Millom) 1861 = 0 1871 =0 1881 =0 1891 = 0 1901 = 0

Blackpool, Lancashire 1861 = 0 1871 =0 1881 =0 1891 = 0 1901 = 0

Interim conclusions
(1) Qualtrough is an extremely rare name outside of the Isle of Man, especially before the 20th Century
(2) Qualtrough became more a little more prevalent (from an extremely low base) in Liverpool from the turn of the century
(3) There is no evidence of any cluster in Cumberland, let alone Millom, at any time

The above data suggests that Wallace would not have been exposed to the name Qualtrough prior to moving to Liverpool. If he heard the name, he was more likely to have heard it in Liverpool (and by the way Caird had heard of the name, if memory serves). I intend to include a more thorough analysis in my second edition of Move to Murder, so any help and thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

* None in Yorkshire either. I have not been able to check Calcutta and Shanghai!!

[etenguy]

Those notes were a frustrating clue Eten. Obviously if a thief had handled them he’d have stolen them so where did the blood come from? I find it hard to believe that Wallace would have taken cash from the cash box with bloodied hands before transferring them upstairs. Firstly it implies a level of carelessness which seems uncharacteristic of Wallace and secondly I’d have to ask why he didn’t simply put the notes into his wallet; adding them to the money that he might already have had, which would have been less suspicious than having the police discover an amount upstairs equal to the amount stolen?

Might Wallace have been unaware of some blood on his finger/thumb when he took the money from the cash box? It’s possible but he would perhaps have been fortunate not to transfer any blood onto the box. Might it have been transferred by Wallace or a police officer post mortem? I just think that this is one of those clues that we can never get further forward with. Frustratingly.

Hi Herlock

You are quite right of course, a careless police officer could have transferred the blood, or possibly even Wallace himself. It is striking, however, that the amount 'stolen' and the amount in the jar are so similar. We can place Wallace in that room before he left for MGE as he said he changed his clothes there before leaving.

If Wallace did swap the notes to the jar, the only sensible conclusion as to why he did that rather than add to his wallet, is that he thought that less suspicious than being caught carrying around a large sum of money on a visit to an area he did not know well.

My source for the police sharing this theory is Mark, page 63, where he says Moore thought that after committing the murder Wallace took the notes from the cash-box and placed them in the jar.

Mark questions why Wallace would have done this anyway, knowing to that the police would search the whole house.

Hi Nick

If Wallace was guilty, he had three options with the money - get rid of it, put it somewhere else in the house or put it in his wallet. I would have to assume, that if it was Wallace, he considered the jar on the mantelpiece was his best option - I suspect the thought of throwing money away was anathema to him. I find it strange that such a large sum would be left in a jar on full view generally - if you had £100 in your house (or me in mine), I suspect we would put it away out of view somewhere.

[NickB]

the search for the weapon might not have been as thorough

But putting myself into the mind of Wallace at the planning stage, it seems a distinct drawback of his plan that he was effectively giving the police a map of where to search. If they did not do so, it should not obscure the fact that Wallace could reasonably have expected them to.

Same with the money, if he used the 'get rid of it' option.

[Herlock Sholmes]

QUALTROUGH - THE NAME AND IT'S DISTRIBUTION

I'm not a genealogist, but I checked ancestry. Recall, Wallace lived in Millom, Cumberland (as it was then) between 1878 and 1888. So, we're interested in the number of Quatrough's living in Millom or Cumberland during those years. As a control, we can compare with the number living in Liverpool.

Ancestry delivers the following results based on its census data:

Liverpool, Lancashire: 1861 = 1 1871 = 0 1881 = 2, 1891 = 0, 1901 = 6

Cumberland (including Millom) 1861 = 0 1871 =0 1881 =0 1891 = 0 1901 = 0

Blackpool, Lancashire 1861 = 0 1871 =0 1881 =0 1891 = 0 1901 = 0

Interim conclusions
(1) Qualtrough is an extremely rare name outside of the Isle of Man, especially before the 20th Century
(2) Qualtrough became more a little more prevalent (from an extremely low base) in Liverpool from the turn of the century
(3) There is no evidence of any cluster in Cumberland, let alone Millom, at any time

The above data suggests that Wallace would not have been exposed to the name Qualtrough prior to moving to Liverpool. If he heard the name, he was more likely to have heard it in Liverpool (and by the way Caird had heard of the name, if memory serves). I intend to include a more thorough analysis in my second edition of Move to Murder, so any help and thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

* None in Yorkshire either. I have not been able to check Calcutta and Shanghai!!

Thats seems pretty conclusive Antony as I’ll assume that we can preclude a proliferation of Qualtrough’s in Calcutta and Shanghai (unless the unprovable was the case and that Wallace met a single Qualtrough in those places) Of course Wallace could have met a Qualtrough anywhere and at anytime but so could anyone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But putting myself into the mind of Wallace at the planning stage, it seems a distinct drawback of his plan that he was effectively giving the police a map of where to search. If they did not do so, it should not obscure the fact that Wallace could reasonably have expected them to.

Same with the money, if he used the 'get rid of it' option.

It’s something I’d like Mark to expand on but in his book, in the footnotes on page 178, he says: The police investigations did not include the searching of the drains on the complete route from Wolverton Street to the Menlove Gardens area.

Obviously neither Wallace nor any other killer could have known where or where not the police might have searched for the weapon. If the weapon had been found on the route would that have meant ‘game over’ for Wallace? I think it would have been a case of the Prosecution would suggest that Wallace had discarded it but the Defence might have said ‘well the caller (who wasn’t Wallace) probably used MGE because he was familiar with the area which might imply that he himself lived somewhere there and so might have discarded it?

[ColdCaseJury]

It’s something I’d like Mark to expand on but in his book, in the footnotes on page 178, he says: The police investigations did not include the searching of the drains on the complete route from Wolverton Street to the Menlove Gardens area.

My view is that Wallace would have tried to dispose of the weapon near his house (where the police did search) and before he got on the first tram. I mean: would you carry an iron bar up your sleeve or in your coat pocket the whole way? This naturally leads to one question: did Wallace carry a bag with him that night? I never found any evidence to suggest he did. Obviously, if he had a bag it would have made disposal anywhere much easier.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My view is that Wallace would have tried to dispose of the weapon near his house (where the police did search) and before he got on the first tram. I mean: would you carry an iron bar up your sleeve or in your coat pocket the whole way? This naturally leads to one question: did Wallace carry a bag with him that night? I never found any evidence to suggest he did. Obviously, if he had a bag it would have made disposal anywhere much easier.

I agree unless Wallace had done a recce and spotted the perfect place for disposal

I may have asked this before but do we know if the police checked all of the ash bins that Wallace might have had access to?

[etenguy]

I agree unless Wallace had done a recce and spotted the perfect place for disposal.

Why do you think he took it away at all?

If he wanted to suggest a burglar interrupted by Julia, then finding a metal bar/rod to whack her with in situ would be quite plausible. Just leave it there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why do you think he took it away at all?

If he wanted to suggest a burglar interrupted by Julia, then finding a metal bar/rod to whack her with in situ would be quite plausible. Just leave it there.

Its certainly not a straightforward point Eten. Maybe he was trying to suggest that the burglar bought a tool/weapon with him that might have somehow been linked to him? Or that because he’d killed on the spur of the moment and just grabbed a household item he was concerned about fingerprints? Or that if the weapon was a household item was he concerned that they might think that he’d killed Julia in a fit of anger?

Who would have been likelier to have taken the weapon away? Wallace or a Mr X? Arguments can be made for both. Nothing new there then.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In fact, I might add that one as my question for Mark Wallace on the podcast?

Every poster on here should add a question for Mark.