** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[etenguy]

I totally agree. It’s the strongest point against William planning to say that there was someone still inside the house when he returned. To be honest it’s possibly the killer blow against my suggestion. I’m wondering if William at the time, and on the spur of the moment might have thought about suggesting that someone was inside the house and maybe he gave that impression to Johnston (maybe he mentioned to a detective “we though that there might have been someone inside”) but then later, realising the weakness of the suggestion (pointed out by yourself), tried to deny ever having it? It would explain why he was so keen to deny having the thought in the first place?

Hi Herlock

That is exactly what happened - trial extract below taken from the julia foundation web-site. It is telling how Wallace goes from denial to acceptance he had the idea and discounted it.

Then there is one other question I want to put to you upon that. Do you remember Inspector Gold asking you whether you thought there was someone in the house when you got back? I think that was page 53. That was when the statement Exhibit 42 was taken. Do you remember him asking you if you thought anyone was in the house when you got back, and do you remember your answer?

Wallace - No, I do not.

“I thought someone was in the house when I went to the front door because I could not open it, and I could not open the back door”. Do you remember saying that?

Wallace - No, I do not.

Do you still think that when you were there you thought there was someone n the house?

Wallace - No, I do not.

You have given up the theory?

Wallace - Yes.

Did you ever believe it?

Wallace - I might have done at the moment.

Did you ever believe that someone was in the house and had unbolted the door there?

Wallace - At the moment I did.

[etenguy]

Just on the above - I have heard the theory - but not sure if there is any record of it - that it was suggested someone came in the back door while it was open, before Wallace returned from Menlove or even before Wallace left (and hid in the house) and committed the crime before Wallace returned. So the Mr Q call gets Wallace out of the house and in theory Mr Q robs the Wallaces and is away without being seen by either Willaim or Julia. This means Mr Q was solely to get Wallace out and not a way of trying to gain entrance. It explains how someone who knew the Wallaces might have committed the crime and thought they could get away without being recognised. If that was the case, then possibly Julia saw and recognised him and that led to the murder. I don't subscribe to this theory particularly, but it does answer the question of how robbery may have been intended and how it went wrong leading to murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

That is exactly what happened - trial extract below taken from the julia foundation web-site. It is telling how Wallace goes from denial to acceptance he had the idea and discounted it.

Then there is one other question I want to put to you upon that. Do you remember Inspector Gold asking you whether you thought there was someone in the house when you got back? I think that was page 53. That was when the statement Exhibit 42 was taken. Do you remember him asking you if you thought anyone was in the house when you got back, and do you remember your answer?

Wallace - No, I do not.

“I thought someone was in the house when I went to the front door because I could not open it, and I could not open the back door”. Do you remember saying that?

Wallace - No, I do not.

Do you still think that when you were there you thought there was someone n the house?

Wallace - No, I do not.

You have given up the theory?

Wallace - Yes.

Did you ever believe it?

Wallace - I might have done at the moment.

Did you ever believe that someone was in the house and had unbolted the door there?

Wallace - At the moment I did.

Cheers Eten,

I knew that I wasn’t imagining it.

[Abby Normal]

Just on the above - I have heard the theory - but not sure if there is any record of it - that it was suggested someone came in the back door while it was open, before Wallace returned from Menlove or even before Wallace left (and hid in the house) and committed the crime before Wallace returned. So the Mr Q call gets Wallace out of the house and in theory Mr Q robs the Wallaces and is away without being seen by either Willaim or Julia. This means Mr Q was solely to get Wallace out and not a way of trying to gain entrance. It explains how someone who knew the Wallaces might have committed the crime and thought they could get away without being recognised. If that was the case, then possibly Julia saw and recognised him and that led to the murder. I don't subscribe to this theory particularly, but it does answer the question of how robbery may have been intended and how it went wrong leading to murder.

but how is just getting him out of the house work for a robbery when mr q knows the wife will still be home. its not like its a robbery when someone will be asleep. its not in the middle of the night. surely mr q knows he has to contend with julia wether she knows him or not.

[etenguy]

but how is just getting him out of the house work for a robbery when mr q knows the wife will still be home. its not like its a robbery when someone will be asleep. its not in the middle of the night. surely mr q knows he has to contend with julia wether she knows him or not.

Hi Abby

I think, if you subscribe to this theory, the idea might be that the thief would wait for Julia to be indisposed (in the toilet perhaps) and then to grab the money in the cashbox and leave quickly by the backdoor. It is therefore helpful to have William out of the house so there is only one person to avoid. If it was someone who knew the cash box set-up (Parry or Marsden for instance) they would not be seen by Julia and could imagine escaping with the money without fear of being caught.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

I think, if you subscribe to this theory, the idea might be that the thief would wait for Julia to be indisposed (in the toilet perhaps) and then to grab the money in the cashbox and leave quickly by the backdoor. It is therefore helpful to have William out of the house so there is only one person to avoid. If it was someone who knew the cash box set-up (Parry or Marsden for instance) they would not be seen by Julia and could imagine escaping with the money without fear of being caught.

thanks eten
yeah i dont subscribe to tjat theory. i cant see how someone would do such an elaborate ruse to get wallace out of the house knowing they would still have to get past the wife. seems to me it was murder all along and staged robbery whether wallace did it or not.

[etenguy]

thanks eten
yeah i dont subscribe to tjat theory. i cant see how someone would do such an elaborate ruse to get wallace out of the house knowing they would still have to get past the wife. seems to me it was murder all along and staged robbery whether wallace did it or not.

Hi Abby

In this scenario the ruse is not so elaborate or complex - it simply amounts to a phone call to Wallace at the Chess club requesting a meeting at Menlove Gardens East. No ruse to get into the house, no difficult situations in the house with being recognised. It simplifies things considerably. Not that there is any evidence that is what happened.

[cobalt]

I think it was AN who pointed out a serious weakness with the burglary theory. The burglar sets up the crime quite cleverly yet once inside the house, despite visiting various rooms, seems to have been pretty half-hearted in his attempts to steal much. Yet in contrast, this ineffective burglar carries out an unplanned murder with lethal efficiency.

[Abby Normal]

I think it was AN who pointed out a serious weakness with the burglary theory. The burglar sets up the crime quite cleverly yet once inside the house, despite visiting various rooms, seems to have been pretty half-hearted in his attempts to steal much. Yet in contrast, this ineffective burglar carries out an unplanned murder with lethal efficiency.

bingo. and once shes dead, hes got more than enough time now to do a thorough burgle. but was does he do? leave money lying around, scattered on tje floor, in a glass in another room. oh but puts the safe back. lol. cmon.

[cobalt]

We're assuming the 'robbery' took place after Julia was struck. However it's just about possible that in a distraction robbery involving two persons that she was struck when she discovered it taking place and the robbers panicked and left. But it's very difficult to see why this attack took place in the parlour. So I think we have to rule that scenario out.

Wallace's focus on the back gate still puzzles me. He says Julia escorted him to the gate but that he did not hear her draw the bolt behind him, presumably her reason for accompanying him there in the first place. It's a slightly odd thing to recall, and since he was aware of it at the time he did not think to pause and ask her why not.

Then on his return, in the midst of his frustration with both the front and back door keys, Wallace observes that the back gate is not bolted. This seems a strange detail to notice given that his attention would have been on the doors themselves or trying to rouse Julia who was perhaps asleep, or trying to see if any lights were on in the house.

By Wallace's account the security of the house is now completely back to front from the usual practice. The front door to the house is bolted from inside which it should not be, and the back gate to the yard is merely closed on the latch when it should be bolted. I am trying various permutations as to why Wallace, if guilty, arranged things this way but am making little headway. Any observations welcome.

A similar conundrum applies to the gas lights inside the property on his return. Wallace, after discovering the horror in the parlour, found two lights on upstairs. One in the bathroom which he said was always kept on, and one in the main bedroom which he thinks he must have left on after changing clothes to make his way out to Menlove Gardens East. Not an oversight one would expect from the parsimonious Wallace but why offer this up to the police? It does him no good- in fact it hints at a hasty exit. But if he did forget to turn off the light in the aftermath of committing murder he had no reason to let the police know this.

[Abby Normal]

We're assuming the 'robbery' took place after Julia was struck. However it's just about possible that in a distraction robbery involving two persons that she was struck when she discovered it taking place and the robbers panicked and left. But it's very difficult to see why this attack took place in the parlour. So I think we have to rule that scenario out.

Wallace's focus on the back gate still puzzles me. He says Julia escorted him to the gate but that he did not hear her draw the bolt behind him, presumably her reason for accompanying him there in the first place. It's a slightly odd thing to recall, and since he was aware of it at the time he did not think to pause and ask her why not.

Then on his return, in the midst of his frustration with both the front and back door keys, Wallace observes that the back gate is not bolted. This seems a strange detail to notice given that his attention would have been on the doors themselves or trying to rouse Julia who was perhaps asleep, or trying to see if any lights were on in the house.

By Wallace's account the security of the house is now completely back to front from the usual practice. The front door to the house is bolted from inside which it should not be, and the back gate to the yard is merely closed on the latch when it should be bolted. I am trying various permutations as to why Wallace, if guilty, arranged things this way but am making little headway. Any observations welcome.

A similar conundrum applies to the gas lights inside the property on his return. Wallace, after discovering the horror in the parlour, found two lights on upstairs. One in the bathroom which he said was always kept on, and one in the main bedroom which he thinks he must have left on after changing clothes to make his way out to Menlove Gardens East. Not an oversight one would expect from the parsimonious Wallace but why offer this up to the police? It does him no good- in fact it hints at a hasty exit. But if he did forget to turn off the light in the aftermath of committing murder he had no reason to let the police know this.

re your fourth paragraph.. because after killing her, he bolts the front door and leaves by the back gate?

[cobalt]

Possibly, but bolting the front door only has any value in terms of alerting his neighbours on his return whom Wallace had no idea would decide to be out visiting at that time.

I had not previously appreciated that Wallace did not seem to have access to a path up the side of his house, so would presumably have had to walk along from his front door past a block of houses to then use a side path towards the alley where his back gate was? A bit of a roundabout trip and something he undertook twice.

In photos I have seen, the brick wall between the neighbouring houses seems fairly high: too high to conduct a conversation easily. Did Wallace and the Johnstons converse this way or out in the back alley where their back gates opened?

[etenguy]

In photos I have seen, the brick wall between the neighbouring houses seems fairly high: too high to conduct a conversation easily. Did Wallace and the Johnstons converse this way or out in the back alley where their back gates opened?

Hi Colbalt

The conversation started with the Johnstones leaving their house by their back door and Wallace was passing in the alley on the way to his back door.

[cobalt]

I assume this is the dividing wall between the Wallace and Johnston houses. Happy to be corrected.

[cobalt]

Cheers etenguy. Crossed post.