** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[etenguy]

My biggest doubt is concerning the Monday evening and the risks that Wallace took. Of being seen in or near to the call box. Or of being seen getting on the tram near the call box. Or of someone getting on at the Belmont Road stop and seeing Wallace already seated?

That is a good point - whoever made the call was accepting some risk.

5. The time available for Wallace to commit the crime (book ended by the milk boy and the tram conductor) was extremely limited to the point where it has to be questioned that it was sufficient (also true in respect of making the Qualtrough call).

I reckon that he had around 11-12 minutes. I think that he could have done it in 5.

I am thinking about the timing, and you are right that Wallace must have left his house about 11-12 minutes after the milk boy's visit at the latest. We know some (a small amount) time was taken up with Julia storing the milk and she had also gone into the parlour and lit the fire. We don't know how much time transpired between receiving the milk and lighting the fire, but it may not have been more than a minute or so.

So the question that raises in my mind, is why did Julia light the fire in the parlour? The intruder (Qualtrough or other) theory would suggest the fire was lit to receive a guest. The Wallace theory would suggest the fire was lit to suggest a guest being entertained. So if Wallace was guilty, he would need to offer a reason to Julia to light the fire (perhaps suggesting they retire there for some musical interlude).

We also know the fire in the kitchen was alight and must have been fairly newly lit or topped up as the fire was still alight when Wallace returned from the Menlove Gardens area. It might be argued it would be unlikely they would top up the kitchen fire just before lighting the parlour fire, therefore a very slight pointer that Wallace was innocent.

If Wallace was guilty, then he had to have a plan to keep clean from Julia's blood - this suggests possibly a stabbing might be a more appropriate method for Wallace to use. The mackintosh shield would have been risky in this regard and Wallace would not have had time to clean up and or change before leaving (and potentially discard some clothes as well as a weapon). So does the actual method of murder suggest someone other than Wallace committed the crime?

A little bit mixed and rambling - but trying to think what evidence supports an innocent Wallace.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are not many posts in this thread that make the case for Wallace's innocence and/or Parry's guilt. When I have provided my reasons for thinking it more likely that Wallace murdered his wife, I have focussed on those things that suggest his guilt. But those reasons taken together, although in my view quite convincing, are insufficient for certainty. Given that uncertainty, it is also worth considering the elements of the case which point to Wallace's innocence. And there are a number of things which do that.

All fair points Eten,

1. Beattie swore the voice he heard on the phone call was definitely not Wallace, even under questioning at the trial - he never showed any doubt in that conviction.

True, but I’d say that, apart from the fact that 1930’s phones might not have had such clear sound quality as today’s, we have to consider that Beattie wouldn't for a second have suspected a prank call. He was a businessman answering a call on a business matter and so would be focusing on the content rather than scrutinising the voice. The words ‘gruff’ and ‘peremptory’ were used to describe the caller which implies someone who wants to say as little as possible. It’s also a point that the operators didn’t say that the caller had a gruff voice which might indicate that the caller exaggerated his voice even more when speaking to Beattie. Wallace knew Beattie of course. I think that it’s also worth mentioning that Wallace was on trial for his life so even if Beattie had considered even for a second that Wallace might have been the caller would he have said something which might have had such dire consequences?

2. There was not a single drop of Julia's blood found on Wallace.

True enough but I think he used protection plus it’s not certain that he would have got blood on him. He might have expected to have got blood on him but he was just fortunate.

3. Wallace's diary and the view of most people asked, point to a close, loving relationship between Julia and Wallace.

True again. Although from the snippets that we have Wallace didn’t appear entirely satisfied with his life and he suffered from depression.

4. No motive for Wallace to commit the murder has ever been proven, instead there is speculation about the state of the marriage based on limited evidence.

I’d ask how many people are on record as saying the Wallace’s were happy? It’s not many.

5. The time available for Wallace to commit the crime (book ended by the milk boy and the tram conductor) was extremely limited to the point where it has to be questioned that it was sufficient (also true in respect of making the Qualtrough call).

I reckon that he had around 11-12 minutes. I think that he could have done it in 5.

6. No-one at the chess club nor on his insurance round noted anything about of his behaviour out of the ordinary.

True, but if Wallace was the type to go back into the parlour of his own volition and examine Julia’s wounds closely and say ‘look at her brains,’ or again enter the room while McFall was examining the body and casually lean across to flick the ash from his cigarette, then this seems quite a cool (even cold) person to me. How many men would want to have slept in that house on that night? Wallace wanted to.

7. The 'alibi' forming in the Menlove area was overdone (often argued to point to his guilt) but it might also be argued that if he had been guilty he would have been more measured so as not to make his alibi suspicious.

You won’t be surprised the hear that I favour the former explanation Eten.

Are there any other aspects which positively point towards Wallace being innocent?

My biggest doubt is concerning the Monday evening and the risks that Wallace took. Of being seen in or near to the call box. Or of being seen getting on the tram near the call box. Or of someone getting on at the Belmont Road stop and seeing Wallace already seated?

[etenguy]

There are not many posts in this thread that make the case for Wallace's innocence and/or Parry's guilt. When I have provided my reasons for thinking it more likely that Wallace murdered his wife, I have focussed on those things that suggest his guilt. But those reasons taken together, although in my view quite convincing, are insufficient for certainty. Given that uncertainty, it is also worth considering the elements of the case which point to Wallace's innocence. And there are a number of things which do that.

1. Beattie swore the voice he heard on the phone call was definitely not Wallace, even under questioning at the trial - he never showed any doubt in that conviction.
2. There was not a single drop of Julia's blood found on Wallace.
3. Wallace's diary and the view of most people asked, point to a close, loving relationship between Julia and Wallace.
4. No motive for Wallace to commit the murder has ever been proven, instead there is speculation about the state of the marriage based on limited evidence.
5. The time available for Wallace to commit the crime (book ended by the milk boy and the tram conductor) was extremely limited to the point where it has to be questioned that it was sufficient (also true in respect of making the Qualtrough call).
6. No-one at the chess club nor on his insurance round noted anything about of his behaviour out of the ordinary.
7. The 'alibi' forming in the Menlove area was overdone (often argued to point to his guilt) but it might also be argued that if he had been guilty he would have been more measured so as not to make his alibi suspicious.

Are there any other aspects which positively point towards Wallace being innocent?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not familiar with that one, but I should have thought ,that the Anfield burglar , who had already fingered a house further up the same street not too long since , would have figured much higher than P D James’s. 1 %.
I wonder if they were ever brought to book?
On another thought, I wonder how often the window cleaner came around. In the 50s ours visited every month. Our Mum filled his bucket , and he’d sit and have a brew and a gossip. What he didn’t know about the neighbourhoods comings and going’s wasn’t worth knowing. I supposed the cops sat Julia’s window cleaners down,and eliminated them from their enquiries pretty smartish , since they were there same day she was murdered.

Sleman claims that the Johnston’s did it based on some guy called Stan who heard a death bed confession by John Johnston. Sadly Johnston died after battling dementia so it’s difficult to see how any ‘confession’ could be taken seriously. Also Johnston’s grandson said that family were with him right up to the end and heard no confession.

The Johnston’s were supposed to have seen William and Julia go to the back gate and into the passage and assumed that they were going out together. Johnston then went inside, stole the cash, then went into the Parlour surprising Julia who was asleep on the sofa. He then killed her. Its nonsense.

We know two things from William. 1) Julia didn’t go into the alley, and 2) she wasn’t wearing a coat, so how could the Johnston’s think that Julia was going out with William on a cold January evening?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Didn't have my glasses on and thought you were referencing Tom Selleck - I bet Magnum would have solved the case by now - he used to only need an hour.

[moste]

He also left out Tom Sleman’s theory. Wisely IMO.

Not familiar with that one, but I should have thought ,that the Anfield burglar , who had already fingered a house further up the same street not too long since , would have figured much higher than P D James’s. 1 %.
I wonder if they were ever brought to book?
On another thought, I wonder how often the window cleaner came around. In the 50s ours visited every month. Our Mum filled his bucket , and he’d sit and have a brew and a gossip. What he didn’t know about the neighbourhoods comings and going’s wasn’t worth knowing. I supposed the cops sat Julia’s window cleaners down,and eliminated them from their enquiries pretty smartish , since they were there same day she was murdered.

[etenguy]

He also left out Tom Sleman’s theory. Wisely IMO.

Didn't have my glasses on and thought you were referencing Tom Selleck - I bet Magnum would have solved the case by now - he used to only need an hour.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He also left out Tom Sleman’s theory. Wisely IMO.

[moste]

Copied from first page ...Quote: Accomplice (a theory first published in my book*)…. 36%
Wallace (supported by Murphy and now Russell)… 29%
Parry (endorsed by Roger Wilkes and the late Jonathan Goodman)… 25%
Conspiracy (Gannon’s theory)… 9%
Prank (the theory of the late P.D. James)… 1%

Hi, CCJ. Was there no consideration given to the culprit being ‘The Anfield Burglar’ ? (My second choice after William Wallace.)

[caz]

Well, Wallace may have thought burglars avoid occupied houses. Being in insurance, he was likely to know. If so then to his mind Julia would be safe as long as she kept the doors locked, put the gas lights on, and maybe played the piano.

I don't have 1930s stats, but this is the case today, where one published estimate is that 70% of burglars would avoid burglary where there is an occupant. And nowadays we rarely have pokers available!

On the other hand, 50% of burglaries are to occupied premises, so either the stats are askew or burglars are not good at guessing if someone is at home.

Maybe Julia was preparing the front room to make sure occupancy was clear to anyone outside, although surely burglars would not try to gain entry at the front where everyone could see them. (That's my hope anyway.)

Hi Dupin,

I don't have a poker, but I do keep a genuine H Division police truncheon by the bed, just in case! I won it in a raffle at the Brighton JtR Conference in 2005, and when Jeremy Beadle presented it to me, the cheeky bugger told everyone it had been following me round all weekend.

Happy days...

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks as ever, Herlock.

This case continues to tease. I now see more pointing to Wallace's guilt than Parry's although I'm still not fully convinced that Parry didn't have some involvement.

Following on from another recent post of yours, I'll throw a wild thought with no substance to back it up into the mix later today or tomorrow. Moste might approve anyway!

Best regards,
OneRound

No problem OneRound. Got there in the end.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Little thought to throw out there. What if Parry had seen Wallace exiting the phone box?

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound,

I just remembered the origin of the story about Parry’s family wanting him out of the country. It was Ada Cook. You can read the details on pages 120 and 121 of Gannon.

Thanks as ever, Herlock.

This case continues to tease. I now see more pointing to Wallace's guilt than Parry's although I'm still not fully convinced that Parry didn't have some involvement.

Following on from another recent post of yours, I'll throw a wild thought with no substance to back it up into the mix later today or tomorrow. Moste might approve anyway!

Best regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, you see I have a problem with that! The cig thing, his alluding to his wife’s brains to a neighbour ,barely an acquaintance.
Leaves the Johnston’s outside still waiting, while he lights one of the gas jets . Very Stoic , Wonder why he didn’t put the kettle on for a brew ?

And all of this after finding himself defeated by the back door for the first time ever? And none of this is suspicious?

[moste]

He definitely lit the right side gas jet before going to inform the Johnston’s. He’d used a match to take a closer look at Julia.

Yeah, you see I have a problem with that! The cig thing, his alluding to his wife’s brains to a neighbour ,barely an acquaintance.
Leaves the Johnston’s outside still waiting, while he lights one of the gas jets . Very Stoic , Wonder why he didn’t put the kettle on for a brew ?