** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[Abby Normal]

Nice post Colbalt, but can I pick up on one point in it (above).

Wallace himself explained how the murder took place (though suggesting it was someone else's actions) in an article in John Bull published on May 21 1932. His version makes more sense in terms of the burning mackintosh (IMHO) than if someone had been naked and wearing the mackintosh.

The link to the article is : https://www.williamherbertwallace.co.../jm_Oooks.jpeg
which is on the site Herlock refered to in an earlier post (The Julia Wallace Murder Foundation - https://www.williamherbertwallace.com ) - which is an excellent, comprehensive and informative site.

The extract pertinent to this point is reproduced below:

He followed my wife into the sitting-room, and as she bent down and lit the gas-fire he struck her, possibly with a spanner. The implement of murder was never discovered.

He had now to kill her. To strike her again while she lay on the floor and him standing over her would mean the upward spurting of blood.

Two strides took him into the lobby, where he had observed my mackintosh hanging, and he held it as a shield between him and her body while he belaboured her to death.

She must have been felled as soon as she lit the fire and before she could regulate the flow of gas. It would have been at full blaze, and as he bent at the fireplace the flame set light to the mackintosh.

Then he would see that the bottom edge of her skirt was burning, and, throwing the mackintosh down, he must have dragged her away from the fire and on to part of the coat, leaving her in the position I found her.

interesting. but why would an intruder care if she caught on fire?hes already killed/ killing her. and you would think and outside intruder a fire on her body would be ideal actually. but not so for a killer who knows hes gotta still live there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

interesting. but why would an intruder care if she caught on fire?hes already killed/ killing her. and you would think and outside intruder a fire on her body would be ideal actually. but not so for a killer who knows hes gotta still live there.

Good point Abby

[Herlock Sholmes]

A point about why a guilty William chose the method that he did. He was trying to give the impression that this was a robbery that turned into a murder so wouldn’t a bludgeoning have been more in keeping with that? I’m not trying to set myself up as an expert on criminal psychology because I’m certainly not one but I’d suggest that strangling is a more ‘personal’ method for murder. A way of killing someone close that you have reason to hate and wish dead, perhaps the culmination of an argument. Or a way of killing by someone who gained sexual gratification from the act. A blow with a blunt instrument is more in keeping with a robbery but this was overkill. It’s not a nice thought but how difficult could it be for a man to kill a 73 year old woman with a heavy blunt object. One blow to the head..two? Were the extra blows incompetence, panic or pent up rage? I favour the latter.

Another point is the location of the body. If she was killed because the thief was caught in the act then surely she would have been killed in the kitchen? Some theories have the killer taking her into the parlour where she suddenly panics causing him to kill her but this makes little sense to me. What would have been the point? She’d seen him. So why didn’t William killer her in the kitchen to make it seem more like she caught a burglar in the act? It’s a fair question. I think that this might point again to William trying to implicate Parry by pointing out that there was no way that Parry could have taken the money and gotten away with it because Julia knew him. So he killed her in the parlour before going for the cash box.