** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[cobalt]

AN,

Your pithy reasoning (in an earlier post) about why the murderer dragged the mackintosh from the fire and your recent comment about Wallace failing to notice the missing poker are well received!

The word 'timeline ' is a bit poncy in my opinion but if Wallace was guilty of premeditated murder then he was juggling three different timelines. He had to leave his home by 6.50pm at the latest to create a plausible alibi. Too much either way creates suspicion. Secondly, he had to murder his wife and remove all forensic evidence from himself. I think 10 minutes is not enough to do this but I accept that it is marginally possible, as I think both you and HS believe. Thirdly, he has the wild card of the milkboy arriving which is totally beyond his control.

None of these is irreconcilable which means Wallace could indeed have killed his wife. But anyone who argues this cannot, in my view, at the same time portray Wallace as some murderous mastermind who cheated the gallows due to his chess like brilliance. I am not accusing either you or HS of doing so but it is a common view amongst those who believe in Wallace's guilt.

Of course any worthwhile genius knows that there are always imponderables and that to act decisively one must trust fortune to some degree. Maybe Wallace recognised that there was no such thing as the perfect murder but that a clever man could tilt the odds in his favour.

[Abby Normal]

AN,

Your pithy reasoning (in an earlier post) about why the murderer dragged the mackintosh from the fire and your recent comment about Wallace failing to notice the missing poker are well received!

The word 'timeline ' is a bit poncy in my opinion but if Wallace was guilty of premeditated murder then he was juggling three different timelines. He had to leave his home by 6.50pm at the latest to create a plausible alibi. Too much either way creates suspicion. Secondly, he had to murder his wife and remove all forensic evidence from himself. I think 10 minutes is not enough to do this but I accept that it is marginally possible, as I think both you and HS believe. Thirdly, he has the wild card of the milkboy arriving which is totally beyond his control.

None of these is irreconcilable which means Wallace could indeed have killed his wife. But anyone who argues this cannot, in my view, at the same time portray Wallace as some murderous mastermind who cheated the gallows due to his chess like brilliance. I am not accusing either you or HS of doing so but it is a common view amongst those who believe in Wallace's guilt.

Of course any worthwhile genius knows that there are always imponderables and that to act decisively one must trust fortune to some degree. Maybe Wallace recognised that there was no such thing as the perfect murder but that a clever man could tilt the odds in his favour.

thanks cobalt.

in my opinion he was no mastermind. it was an ok thought out plan and he also got lucky. but he also made some mistakes. the luck and the mistakes canceled out. lets not forget he was arrested, charged, prosecuted and originally found guilty. it was pretty much a wash.

a mastermind, or perfect murder, the killer never is even suspected.

[cobalt]

End of year appreciations to all those on this site, especially Abby Normal, Fiver and Herlock Scholmes of late. I think the Wallace Case brings out the best in people's reasoning since to veer into dogmatism exposes our limitations. It was Raymond Chandler, the crime writer without equal, who spotted that every action undertaken by Wallace which intimated his guilt, was also capable of exonerating him. Chandler ( whose plotting was itself sometimes substandard) I think hit the nail on the head.

I have spent some time on Wallace's timeline and am appreciative of the response. The milkboy to me is very much the fly in the ointment of Wallace's plan, if he was guilty. But if Wallace was a cold, calculated wife killer why did he not phone in the time of the Qualtrough meeting to 8pm, a time when he knew that all his domestic obligations had been fulfilled? I appreciate that 7.30 is a standard meeting time in the UK but 8pm is just within credibility and removes all these pesky newspaper boys and milk boys from his devious plan.

It seems to me Wallace needed the corroboration of Julia being alive reasonably close to the time he set out for Menlove Gardens, but on the day this narrowed his time frame so much it became almost miniscule. That's why we're still here I suppose.

[Herlock Sholmes]

End of year appreciations to all those on this site, especially Abby Normal, Fiver and Herlock Scholmes of late. I think the Wallace Case brings out the best in people's reasoning since to veer into dogmatism exposes our limitations. It was Raymond Chandler, the crime writer without equal, who spotted that every action undertaken by Wallace which intimated his guilt, was also capable of exonerating him. Chandler ( whose plotting was itself sometimes substandard) I think hit the nail on the head.

I have spent some time on Wallace's timeline and am appreciative of the response. The milkboy to me is very much the fly in the ointment of Wallace's plan, if he was guilty. But if Wallace was a cold, calculated wife killer why did he not phone in the time of the Qualtrough meeting to 8pm, a time when he knew that all his domestic obligations had been fulfilled? I appreciate that 7.30 is a standard meeting time in the UK but 8pm is just within credibility and removes all these pesky newspaper boys and milk boys from his devious plan.

It seems to me Wallace needed the corroboration of Julia being alive reasonably close to the time he set out for Menlove Gardens, but on the day this narrowed his time frame so much it became almost miniscule. That's why we're still here I suppose.

Hi Cobalt,

Thanks for your opening comment, I totally agree. There’s no doubt that the Wallace case is an absolute cracker in terms of its difficulty. You mention Chandler, I’d add Edgar Lustgarten who said: “As a mental exercise, as a challenge to one’s powers of deduction and analysis, the Wallace murder is in a class by itself.”

I tend to agree. It can become addictive and drive you slightly mad at the same time. My own opinion is that William had assumed that the milk boy would arrive earlier, probably by casually asking Julia the question during the course of a conversation, not realising expecting Close to arrive later on the Tuesday due to his bike being out of action. I know that some have tried to portray William as a brilliant planner connected to his chess playing, as you’ve pointed out, but we all know that being able to play chess doesn’t make you Professor Moriarty, and we know that he was nothing more than an average club player playing in the middle league of three. I tend to suspect that he was like some intelligent criminals in that he believed that he was cleverer than he actually was. I believe that William probably had around 8 or 9 minutes which I see as ample. Others might disagree of course.

I wrote a long piece about the case for Antony Brown’s site a few years ago and I’ve recently re-written it into a lengthy dissertation which I’ve submitted to Ally for approval and hopefully to be put in the dissertation section on here.

….

There are points in the case which still cause heads to be scratched and opinions to vary though and I’ll throw one out for discussion here with apologies for repeating details of the case.

After Julia’s body had been found John Johnston suggested that William go check upstairs and when he returned he said that some money in a jar in the bedroom was still there. Later after PC Williams had arrived he and William checked around the house. While in the bedroom William pulled out the cash from the jar to show the Constable but Williams told him to put it back.

Later a smear of dried blood was found on a pound note the question of course is how did it the smear get there. (The smear was checked btw and it was definitely blood) The smear was within a fold so the person must have touched it before it had been folded. Unless someone can come up with another possibility I’d suggest that these are our options:

1. That a killer/burglar other than William got the blood on the note.

2. The blood was already on the note and unconnected to the murder.

3. In the course of the investigation one of the police officers accidentally transferred blood from the crime scene to the note.

4. William got blood on him when examining his wife’s body and then transferred it to the note.

5. William took the money from the cash box downstairs and put the note in the jar upstairs transferring the blood in the process.

Ok.

1. Id suggest that we can eliminate this one straight away. No burglar in search of cash would pick up the note and then return it to the jar. This explanation makes no sense imo.

2. Not impossible but unlikely perhaps. Also if William had seen this note opened out which would seem likely how long ago had he put it there? If he’d put it there recently while planning the robbery he wouldn’t have wanted a bloodied note in that jar for the police to start asking very awkward questions.

3. All of the officers were asked and all said that they were sure that they hadn’t. It’s difficult to come up with a reason for them to have lied. Could they have been mistaken? No impossible we’re not talking about a procession of officers walking around the house. I can’t see a police officer being the explanation tbh.

4. It’s possible. It was commented on about how close he got to his wife’s body. All the same though, he wouldn’t have wanted a bloodied note in the jar for the police to ask why a burglar would have put it back. Could he have transferred it accidentally. Possible but wouldn’t he have noticed? And if he had noticed what he’d done surely he’d have informed PC Williams to avoid the awkward question later.

5. Possible. With the same proviso. Surely it would have had to have been unnoticed by William. Maybe he got some specks on him but didn’t notice the one that made the smear? Does the fact that there was a tiny clot of blood found on the toilet bowl indicate some kind of clean up in the bathroom?

For me it’s 4 or 5. I tend to favour 5. Not straightforward though.

[etenguy]

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.

Hi Abby

I think Wallace is suggesting the murderer threw the coat down (he didn't want to get burnt) and dragged Julia to where he could continue to hit her and either the cost was just smouldering or the dragging put the flames out. But it might just have been instinctual to put our the flames.

[etenguy]

I wrote a long piece about the case for Antony Brown’s site a few years ago and I’ve recently re-written it into a lengthy dissertation which I’ve submitted to Ally for approval and hopefully to be put in the dissertation section on here.

Hi Herlock

I hope it is approved for publication here - I am dying to read it.

There are points in the case which still cause heads to be scratched and opinions to vary though and I’ll throw one out for discussion here with apologies for repeating details of the case.

After Julia’s body had been found John Johnston suggested that William go check upstairs and when he returned he said that some money in a jar in the bedroom was still there. Later after PC Williams had arrived he and William checked around the house. While in the bedroom William pulled out the cash from the jar to show the Constable but Williams told him to put it back.

Later a smear of dried blood was found on a pound note the question of course is how did it the smear get there. (The smear was checked btw and it was definitely blood) The smear was within a fold so the person must have touched it before it had been folded. Unless someone can come up with another possibility I’d suggest that these are our options:

1. That a killer/burglar other than William got the blood on the note.

2. The blood was already on the note and unconnected to the murder.

3. In the course of the investigation one of the police officers accidentally transferred blood from the crime scene to the note.

4. William got blood on him when examining his wife’s body and then transferred it to the note.

5. William took the money from the cash box downstairs and put the note in the jar upstairs transferring the blood in the process.

Ok.

1. Id suggest that we can eliminate this one straight away. No burglar in search of cash would pick up the note and then return it to the jar. This explanation makes no sense imo.

2. Not impossible but unlikely perhaps. Also if William had seen this note opened out which would seem likely how long ago had he put it there? If he’d put it there recently while planning the robbery he wouldn’t have wanted a bloodied note in that jar for the police to start asking very awkward questions.

3. All of the officers were asked and all said that they were sure that they hadn’t. It’s difficult to come up with a reason for them to have lied. Could they have been mistaken? No impossible we’re not talking about a procession of officers walking around the house. I can’t see a police officer being the explanation tbh.

4. It’s possible. It was commented on about how close he got to his wife’s body. All the same though, he wouldn’t have wanted a bloodied note in the jar for the police to ask why a burglar would have put it back. Could he have transferred it accidentally. Possible but wouldn’t he have noticed? And if he had noticed what he’d done surely he’d have informed PC Williams to avoid the awkward question later.

5. Possible. With the same proviso. Surely it would have had to have been unnoticed by William. Maybe he got some specks on him but didn’t notice the one that made the smear? Does the fact that there was a tiny clot of blood found on the toilet bowl indicate some kind of clean up in the bathroom?

For me it’s 4 or 5. I tend to favour 5. Not straightforward though.

I agree with your options and evaluations, leaving us once again with two viable options - one for a guilty Wallace and one for an innocent Wallace.

The blood found on the toilet rim is perhaps not as damning of Wallace at might first appear. When was it deposited there and by whom? The problem with a bathroom clean up is that no other blood was found anywhere in the bathroom, nor on Wallace. Is it possible then that one of the police officers transferred it there by accident during their investigations - suggested at the trial I think.

One of the intriguing issues for me is that when you add the money found in the jar with the coins found on the kitchen floor - it very nearly tallies with the cash Wallace stated was in the cash box (ignoring the cheque and postal orders) though different denominations. A coincidence or does it suggest the money was moved from the cash box to the jar. If the money was moved, it could only have been Wallace that moved it, since he stated he knew about the money in the jar.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I hope it is approved for publication here - I am dying to read it.



I agree with your options and evaluations, leaving us once again with two viable options - one for a guilty Wallace and one for an innocent Wallace.

The blood found on the toilet rim is perhaps not as damning of Wallace at might first appear. When was it deposited there and by whom? The problem with a bathroom clean up is that no other blood was found anywhere in the bathroom, nor on Wallace. Is it possible then that one of the police officers transferred it there by accident during their investigations - suggested at the trial I think.

One of the intriguing issues for me is that when you add the money found in the jar with the coins found on the kitchen floor - it very nearly tallies with the cash Wallace stated was in the cash box (ignoring the cheque and postal orders) though different denominations. A coincidence or does it suggest the money was moved from the cash box to the jar. If the money was moved, it could only have been Wallace that moved it, since he stated he knew about the money in the jar.

Hi Eten,

I still think that both 4 and 5 cover a guilty William but I do take your point that 4 could have been an innocent one.

Another point that I find strange is that the very next day, after his wife had been brutally murdered, William went into the prudential office and paid in £10 11s. Firstly, why would he have done that? The Prudential weren’t Victorian Mill owners. They wouldn’t have expected him in that day and secondly, they wouldn’t have expected him to make up the loss from his own money which is what he would have had to have done. According to an online calculator £10 11s would have been the equivalent of just over £800 by today’s reckoning. Strange behaviour to put it mildly imo.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

I think Wallace is suggesting the murderer threw the coat down (he didn't want to get burnt) and dragged Julia to where he could continue to hit her and either the cost was just smouldering or the dragging put the flames out. But it might just have been instinctual to put our the flames.

ok thanks. yes the burnt coat and skirt is another confounding sub mystery to this confounding mystery! at some point i was thinking that wallace was going to try and burn the coat after he killed her and changed his mind and to put it out shoved it under her body to smother the flames hence her burned skirt. i dont think ive ever heard of a satisfactory explanation for it regardless of who the killer was. its just so weird.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Herlock

I hope it is approved for publication here - I am dying to read it.



I agree with your options and evaluations, leaving us once again with two viable options - one for a guilty Wallace and one for an innocent Wallace.

The blood found on the toilet rim is perhaps not as damning of Wallace at might first appear. When was it deposited there and by whom? The problem with a bathroom clean up is that no other blood was found anywhere in the bathroom, nor on Wallace. Is it possible then that one of the police officers transferred it there by accident during their investigations - suggested at the trial I think.

One of the intriguing issues for me is that when you add the money found in the jar with the coins found on the kitchen floor - it very nearly tallies with the cash Wallace stated was in the cash box (ignoring the cheque and postal orders) though different denominations. A coincidence or does it suggest the money was moved from the cash box to the jar. If the money was moved, it could only have been Wallace that moved it, since he stated he knew about the money in the jar.

why would wallace take money from the cash box and go upstairs and put it in the jar?!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

ok thanks. yes the burnt coat and skirt is another confounding sub mystery to this confounding mystery! at some point i was thinking that wallace was going to try and burn the coat after he killed her and changed his mind and to put it out shoved it under her body to smother the flames hence her burned skirt. i dont think ive ever heard of a satisfactory explanation for it regardless of who the killer was. its just so weird.

A point that I raised a few years ago in discussion Abby was the fact that Julia’s skirt was indeed badly singed, the assumption being that her body had called against the fire grate, but her underskirt was unmarked. Julia wasn’t a snappy dresser. It was even claimed by someone that she wasn’t very clean (I hope that I’m not imagining this but I’m sure it was mentioned) She certainly wore some form of homemade, wrap around underwear fixed with a pin or two. So my question was - was the singeing from her falling against the fire or had her dressed been singed previously? Perhaps left near a fire too long whilst in the process of drying? Would she really have thrown out an otherwise wearable skirt? Especially for wear around the house?

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

I still think that both 4 and 5 cover a guilty William but I do take your point that 4 could have been an innocent one.

Another point that I find strange is that the very next day, after his wife had been brutally murdered, William went into the prudential office and paid in £10 11s. Firstly, why would he have done that? The Prudential weren’t Victorian Mill owners. They wouldn’t have expected him in that day and secondly, they wouldn’t have expected him to make up the loss from his own money which is what he would have had to have done. According to an online calculator £10 11s would have been the equivalent of just over £800 by today’s reckoning. Strange behaviour to put it mildly imo.

Hi Herlock

That is strange behaviour - and where did the money come from? The police took the money found at the Wallace house, so Wallace presumeably used his own money- Whether innocent or guilty, why sould he do that? Perhaps he was suffering poor mental health - not surprising in the circumstances I guess.

[Herlock Sholmes]

why would wallace take money from the cash box and go upstairs and put it in the jar?!!

It’s a fair question Abby. Why didn’t he just put it in his wallet? According to William the cash box contained:

One £1 Treasury note
Three 10 shilling notes
30 or 40 shillings in silver
A postal order for 4s 6d
A cheque for £5 17/-

The jar in the upstairs room contained:

Four £1 Treasury notes
One half crown (2/6)
A postal order for 2/4

William wouldn’t have wanted to have risked hiding money around the house in case the police found it and became suspicious. There’s certainly no straightforward answer though Abby.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

That is strange behaviour - and where did the money come from? The police took the money found at the Wallace house, so Wallace presumeably used his own money- Whether innocent or guilty, why sould he do that? Perhaps he was suffering poor mental health - not surprising in the circumstances I guess.

Hi Eten,

Yes it’s certainly odd. As I said, that was a huge sum of money. I can’t recall events of that day but he’d have had to have gone to the bank and I can’t recall mention of him doing that.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

Yes it’s certainly odd. As I said, that was a huge sum of money. I can’t recall events of that day but he’d have had to have gone to the bank and I can’t recall mention of him doing that.

Hi Herlock

Maybe things were different in the 1930s, but taking out that much money today would entail advanced notice and/or security checks which makes it not a trivial endeavour. Indeed banks were a little nervous during the early 1930s (I believe they closed for a week to stop a run on the banks), but that was a little later. Anyway, apparently he did get the money out so just a useless tangent.

Do you think this might have been an overkill attempt to show money was no motive? Maybe over thinking at this stage.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

Maybe things were different in the 1930s, but taking out that much money today would entail advanced notice and/or security checks which makes it not a trivial endeavour. Indeed banks were a little nervous during the early 1930s (I believe they closed for a week to stop a run on the banks), but that was a little later. Anyway, apparently he did get the money out so just a useless tangent.

Do you think this might have been an overkill attempt to show money was no motive? Maybe over thinking at this stage.

To be honest, I don’t really know what to make of it Eten even though I’ve thought about it quite often since I’ve had an interest in the case. Apart from appearing to be strange behaviour it’s not something that I can see points to guilt or innocence. The money in the cash box was the entirety of his collection money which came to a total of either £10 1s 6d or £10 11s 6d (the difference was because he said that there was either 30-40 shillings. Then there was the money found on the floor of course.

There was talk about money at the trial with some confusing comments by the police. A bit of a headache if I recall correctly but I might have another look over the next couple of days.