** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Was Julia wearing the macintosh or not? Even if the killer was someone other than Wallace, it’s not impossible that he did use it for some protection after seeing it hanging it in the hall

Its suggested that she either wore it to answer the door or to go into a cold parlour and yet she definitely didn’t wear it when she went to the back gate with William.

Its not impossible that someone else used it but I’d say that it was much less likely for an unplanned murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
It would be useful to know in what sequence the blows were struck. For instance, it’s possible that the first was a knockout blow, perhaps delivered to an unsuspecting Julia from behind, that laid her on the floor but didn’t splash much blood to speak of. After that the killer might have donned the macintosh and proceeded to beat the poor lady’s head to a pulp, splashing blood all the way up the walls in the process. Incidentally is it possible to estimate whether the killer was left- or right-handed, and whether Wallace or any other suspect was?

I think that most agree that the first blow, if it didn’t kill her, rendered her with completely unconscious or in able of moving. Then the other blows followed.

I’ve got no books with me at the moment but I think it more likely that the killer was right handed due to the location of the main wound. We have no way of knowing for sure the relative positions of Julia and William....err I meant ‘her killer’ of course so it’s difficult to judge.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

I agree with what you’ve said here, and with Herlock too: the indications are that murder was always intended. Julia didn’t surprise an otherwise trusted visitor rifling the cash box, otherwise she would have been found in the kitchen, not in the parlour. Nor in all probability did she surprise a burglar, since there was no sign of a break-in. As you said, it was Julia herself who was taken by surprise. The fact that she was found in the parlour points either to Wallace himself, or to a visitor that Julia admitted to the house. And interference with the cash-box points to someone who knew where it was--either Wallace or someone familiar with the household, which explains why Julia would trust him enough to let him in.

Hi Gordon

It certainly appears to me, on the balance of probability that this is the case.

I don’t attach much importance to the fact that no blood was found outside the parlour. If the killer was anyone other than Wallace, he must have had some blood on his clothes, but that doesn’t mean he was dripping blood all over the floor. If he wore gloves and they were bloody, he could have dumped them in a bag along with the murder weapon before messing with the cash-box.

Except, there is evidence suggesting someone wiped their feet on the hearth rug. That would suggest they were trying not to spread blood about the house. It is one of the reasons that points to Wallace as the likely murderer, in my view.

Similarly I’m dubious about the significance of the front door being bolted. Any outsider not wanting to be disturbed, during a burglary or a murder, might bolt the front door to protect themselves against entry by the homeowner to give themselves time to escape out the back. Possibly it was bolted and P.C. Williams didn’t hear the bolt being drawn before he entered. He heard some “fumbling,” that’s all. Do we even know what kind of lock the door had? A Yale-type cylinder lock with a latch, so ubiquitous on front doors, or some older type? I understand the Yale lock dates back to 1865, so plenty of older houses must have been fitted with them. That’s one of those details that can be important but is not always clear--like why exactly the wash-house door at 10 Rillington Place wouldn’t open. (I think it was just missing a handle and spindle.)

I'm not sure which lock it was, but the lock was broken. Not so badly broken it couldn't be used, but broken nevertheless.
We only have Wallace's word that the front door was bolted. If it was, we have to ask why. Julia would not have bolted the door, she expected Wallace would use that door on his return. Therefore, either the door was bolted or Wallace wanted people to believe it was bolted. If it was bolted, it was the murderer who did that. We can speculate as to why, but depending on who the murderer is, the reason will be different.

Was Julia wearing the macintosh or not? Even if the killer was someone other than Wallace, it’s not impossible that he did use it for some protection after seeing it hanging it in the hall--or knowing it would b be there, since Wallace left without it. The point here is that Wallace would have needed complete protection from blood anywhere on his clothing, trouser legs, shoes, face and so on, and the macintosh could never guarantee that. But if it provided substantial protection to another killer who could clean up more thoroughly afterwards, that would be good enough. Besides, using it would help to point the finger at Wallace.

I favour a more straight-forward explanation for the mackintosh. I think it likely Wallace was dressed for his journey to MGE and was wearing the mackintosh. Following the murder, the mackintosh was left at the scene covered in blood. Julia would not have been suspicious as she knew he was going out. It may have protected his clothes, or it may not. If it did, great result. If not, he changed before he left (as he told the police and court that he did.) I like you think he was likely wearing gloves as well.

It would be useful to know in what sequence the blows were struck. For instance, it’s possible that the first was a knockout blow, perhaps delivered to an unsuspecting Julia from behind, that laid her on the floor but didn’t splash much blood to speak of. After that the killer might have donned the macintosh and proceeded to beat the poor lady’s head to a pulp, splashing blood all the way up the walls in the process. Incidentally is it possible to estimate whether the killer was left- or right-handed, and whether Wallace or any other suspect was?

It was Professor MacFall's opinion that the first blow killed Julia and it was to the front of her head. The other blows administered while she was on the floor.

As for that cash-box that “didn’t look a real robbery,” it’s possible that it was never meant to! Rather, it may have been intended to look like a fake robbery. That again could be a killer’s way of pointing the finger at Wallace as the “most likely” suspect for having faked it.

It is difficult to know, in the end it will depend on whether you think Wallace the more likely killer, or someone else.

Overall I would certainly not rule out revenge as a major motive for this crime.

It cannot be ruled out, but if so, the killer must have been badly affected by Julia and/or Wallace.

[Gordon]

Hi Herlock,

[The agent was called] At his home but not at a club that very few people knew that he was a member of.

Sure, though if Wallace was “set up” I assume it must have been by someone familiar with his habits. Anyway if he couldn’t recall knowing any “Qualtrough,” the fact of being called at his club might seem to add authenticity to the call. (“I must have been recommended to this Qualtrough by someone who knows me...”)

I can’t see where anyone could stand to see Wallace leaving by either doors? And not without being seen by Wallace?

If Wallace was going into Richmond Park, leaving by the back gate I assume he’d turn right to go northwest up the back alley. In 25 yards it dead-ends into another passage where he’d turn left (southwest) and walk a mere few yards into Richmond Park. If he left by the front door instead, he’d walk 25 yards northwest up Wolverton Street then turn left into that same passage. Anyone lurking in that back alley southeast of his back gate could either see him coming out, or if he left by the front door, see him passing along the end of the alley. It was a dark night with almost no moon. Wallace would never recognize a man muffled up against the cold that he wasn’t expecting to see, even if he looked that way in the first place. But Wallace with his six feet two inches would be fairly recognizable from a moderate distance by someone who was looking for him

Antony also mentioned that some engineering works might have affected tram times but I believe Mark writes that they’d been ongoing for a considerable time? If so it’s likely that Wallace would have been aware of this. The point being that the normally well organised, efficient Wallace arrives at the club to play his match on the stroke of the deadline.

Are we sure that he arrived as late as that? Players were penalized if tournament games failed to start by 7:45, and we haven’t heard that Wallace was penalized. Before he even started playing he first had to hunt around for his scheduled opponent Chandler, only to discover that he was absent. Then James Caird proposed a game, but Wallace turned him down because he wanted to wipe off some of his backlog of unplayed games. Then he had to hunt up McCartney, with whom he then did play a game. All that must have taken a few minutes. James Caird said he “thought” Wallace arrived “about” 7:45, but clearly there’s some leeway in there.

Similarly on the Tuesday he arrived to look for MGE with only 10 minutes to spare in a very large area where, according to him, he was a ‘complete stranger.’

Well, I wouldn’t call it a “very large” area. It only takes seven or eight minutes to walk around the entire Gardens, West, North, South. He could have underestimated travel time anyway on an unfamiliar route.

with Wallace being an irregular attender. How many night would our burglar be prepared to waste sitting around waiting for Wallace to attend the club?

Not many, I don’t suppose! However, I suspect that missing four meetings in a row for unusual for Wallace. Although he was an irregular attender, Beattie’s evidence indicated he attended more often than this long absence would suggest:

The club meets two evenings, on Mondays and Thursdays, during the winter. I have known the accused for about eight years.

Was he in the habit of attending on one or both of those days?--He was not what we call a regular attender. We may say, most likely one, sometimes two. If there was a match on, he might come two nights a week.

Later, Beattie said

I told him [Qualtrough] that Mr. Wallace was coming to the club that night, and he would be there shortly, would be ring up again.

Clearly Beattie couldn’t know for sure that Wallace would be there, since Wallace said he’d told nobody. However, he still expected Wallace to turn up despite his recent absences. This suggests Wallace could generally be predicted to turn up more often than not.

For me, improbable is the Prank Theory, The chances of them not being connected must be astronomically high and I just can’t see Wallace deciding and carrying out a murder all within 24 hours. It’s too grave an undertaking not to have taken more thinking time.

I absolutely agree with that!

Almost impossible for me is a guilty Parry. He has an alibi that cannot be shaken and so until someone can offer evidence that his alibi was false then personally I can’t consider him a suspect

Well, I understood that Lily Lloyd repudiated the alibi she’d given Parry for the night of the murder, after he threw her over, saying she couldn’t have been with him that night anyway because she was playing the piano at the Cosy Cinema in Boaler Street, Clubmoor, until late in the evening. Whether this was a mere act of spite is debatable, but it does seem to call the matter into question.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Well, I understood that Lily Lloyd repudiated the alibi she’d given Parry for the night of the murder, after he threw her over, saying she couldn’t have been with him that night anyway because she was playing the piano at the Cosy Cinema in Boaler Street, Clubmoor, until late in the evening. Whether this was a mere act of spite is debatable, but it does seem to call the matter into question

Its not Lily Lloyd that’s important though Graham. He was alibi’d by 4 people at Knocklaid Road until 8.30. Parry also named 2 places that he went to directly after leaving the Brine’s (although there’s nothing to show that these 2 were checked. They were certainly checkable though.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Not many, I don’t suppose! However, I suspect that missing four meetings in a row for unusual for Wallace. Although he was an irregular attender, Beattie’s evidence indicated he attended more often than this long absence would suggest:

The club meets two evenings, on Mondays and Thursdays, during the winter. I have known the accused for about eight years.

Was he in the habit of attending on one or both of those days?--He was not what we call a regular attender. We may say, most likely one, sometimes two. If there was a match on, he might come two nights a week.
Later, Beattie said

I told him [Qualtrough] that Mr. Wallace was coming to the club that night, and he would be there shortly, would be ring up again.
Clearly Beattie couldn’t know for sure that Wallace would be there, since Wallace said he’d told nobody. However, he still expected Wallace to turn up despite his recent absences. This suggests Wallace could generally be predicted to turn up more often than not

Its important to note though Gordon that, in his statement, Beattie and the caller specifically asked him:

“Will you be sure to see him?”

To which Beattie replied that he did not know.

....

Although the league table on the notice board shows that Wallace was behind in his games and so was possibly an irregular attender it’s not unreasonable for someone that knew he was a member might have assumed that he attended every week (especially if they hadn’t checked the board)

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Are we sure that he arrived as late as that? Players were penalized if tournament games failed to start by 7:45, and we haven’t heard that Wallace was penalized. Before he even started playing he first had to hunt around for his scheduled opponent Chandler, only to discover that he was absent. Then James Caird proposed a game, but Wallace turned him down because he wanted to wipe off some of his backlog of unplayed games. Then he had to hunt up McCartney, with whom he then did play a game. All that must have taken a few minutes. James Caird said he “thought” Wallace arrived “about” 7:45, but clearly there’s some leeway in there

Beattie, in his statement, said that he mentioned the message to Caird at around 7.30 and Wallace was already there. Beattie judged the time by saying that it was about a quarter of an hour after the call. Phone Supervisor Annie Robertson said that she managed to connect the caller with the club at 7.20. So if we say that the call took 3 minutes it takes us to 7.23. Beattie’s approximate 15 minutes was just that, but if we use 15 it takes us to 7.38 which might easily have been slightly later of course.

Caird said at the trial that Wallace arrived at around 7.45.

[Ven]

I don't think they were hard and fast on the 7.45 rule but by all accounts it would have been close. William played Mcartney cos he saw him there and he owed him a game.

[Ven]

OK, so i'm elaborating on earlier unanswered posts (My BOLD) -

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 lunch 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.

Some people have claimed that "told" and "Discussed" are two different things and that he "may have" "told" her at some previous time, and then "discussed" at "Tea". However, in a written statement William says -

"... I arrived home at 6.05pm. I remember the time quite well because, I looked at the time on the mantelpiece to ascertain how much time I had to spare before leaving for Manlove Gardens East."

So, you can't use two different definitions/uses of the words William used to suit both instances.

A) He either told/discussed before tea, which makes his statement at trial a lie, or

(B) he told/discussed at Tea AFTER he had already decided to go. Or

(C) He never mentioned the trip to Julia at all.

Therefore,

(A) William is lying under oath

(B) Whether William's lying or telling the truth, Amy could not have discussed it with Julia a 3.30pm that afternoon

(C) William lied at trial and both he and Amy lied in their statements.

OK so let's say, for example, he did tell Julia at breakfast -

(A) he didn't answer the simple question at trial...but still stated Tea time. And Julia didn't question it?...otherwise it would have been "discussed"...seems a bit strange.

(B ) although telling Julia about it at breakfast, they discussed at Tea AFTER he had already decided to go...seems a bit strange

(C) no point to make here - if we are guessing he told her a breakfast.

Am I missing something? i can only go on what was said...

[ColdCaseJury]

OK so let's say, for example, he did tell Julia at breakfast -

(A) he didn't answer the simple question at trial...but still stated Tea time. And Julia didn't question it?...otherwise it would have been "discussed"...seems a bit strange.

(B) although telling Julia about it at breakfast, they discussed at Tea AFTER he had already decided to go...seems a bit strange

(C) no point to make here - if we are guessing he told her a breakfast.

Am I missing something? i can only go on what was said...

Ven, some good points. My earlier point was that your argument does not prove Wallace and/or Amy was lying. Some might agree with you that the only reasonable inference is that he is. However, I'm not sure that the bold quote changes anything. Here's one possibility for (A): he could have briefly told Julia about the chess game and the call at breakfast. She says: are you going? He says: I don't know yet. By late afternoon (the weather improved by then, if memory serves) he decides to go. On arrival home at 6.05pm, he looks at the clock to see how long he has for tea etc. Julia mentions: are you going then? He says yes, discusses the appointment, saying how much commission he thinks he'll make etc.

[etenguy]

OK, so i'm elaborating on earlier unanswered posts (My BOLD) -

Am I missing something? i can only go on what was said...[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

Hi Ven

The quote from the trial that you are examining was not the only time Wallace stated at Court that he had told his wife. On page 245 of the trial notes you will find where Wallace advises the Court that he had discussed Qualtrough and the Menlove Gardens East trip Quote below.

She knew all about it. As a matter of fact we had discussed it during the day......

he goes on to say he had told her the man's name and 'all about it'

[NickB]

If the first blow was to the front of the head, wouldn't this be a factor against it being a surprise attack? It suggests she was facing her attacker rather than being sneaked up on from behind.

[Ven]

Ven, some good points. My earlier point was that your argument does not prove Wallace and/or Amy was lying. Some might agree with you that the only reasonable inference is that he is. However, I'm not sure that the bold quote changes anything. Here's one possibility for (A): he could have briefly told Julia about the chess game and the call at breakfast. She says: are you going? He says: I don't know yet. By late afternoon (the weather improved by then, if memory serves) he decides to go. On arrival home at 6.05pm, he looks at the clock to see how long he has for tea etc. Julia mentions: are you going then? He says yes, discusses the appointment, saying how much commission he thinks he'll make etc.

Hmmm...yeah, but... the weather has nothing to do with it... he has been traipsing around Liverpool for 15+ years in all sorts of weather, 5 days a week, every day, every week, every year. So he gives up on a big commission because it might rain... when he's collected in the same rain for years(?)

He could have told Julia at breakfast "briefly" but i"m only dealing with what was said...or not said ... not what was "perhaps" said.... I tried that in my very first paper and was shot down in flames.

[Ven]

Hi Ven

The quote from the trial that you are examining was not the only time Wallace stated at Court that he had told his wife. On page 245 of the trial notes you will find where Wallace advises the Court that he had discussed Qualtrough and the Menlove Gardens East trip Quote below.



he goes on to say he had told her the man's name and 'all about it'

So Etenguy, which answer do we believe?

They discussed it during the day (so after breakfast and not the night before after chess) ... at Tea (which is what he said)... After he got home at 6.05 to see how much time he had to go.

Keep in mind that my argument is that he never told Julia because the meeting never existed.
His statements before and at trial don't add up.
He contradicts himself at trial.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hmmm...yeah, but... the weather has nothing to do with it... he has been traipsing around Liverpool for 15+ years in all sorts of weather, 5 days a week, every day, every week, every year. So he gives up on a big commission because it might rain... when he's collected in the same rain for years(?)

He could have told Julia at breakfast "briefly" but i"m only dealing with what was said...or not said ... not what was "perhaps" said.... I tried that in my very first paper and was shot down in flames.

To be honest Ven I wouldn’t say ‘shot down in flames.’ It was a very good observation and something that no one else had noticed as far as I’m aware so I certainly take my hat off to you. All that I’d say though is that there is a possible and plausible innocent explanation. That said of course it’s by no means certain that this innocent explanation is correct.