** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[Herlock Sholmes]

At the trial PC Williams was asked about when he first entered the parlour.

“The accused stepped round the body near the sideboard and lit the left hand gas mantle.” Williams didn’t ask him to do this.

Would most people in that position have wanted to have kept returning to a room where their wife had been horribly bludgeoned to death? Florence Johnston said that she and William were in the kitchen when William got up and went to the Parlour and she followed him. Asked at the Trial what Wallace did next she said:

“Mr Wallace stooped over Mrs Wallace and he said “They have finished her; look at the brains.”

Then McFall at the Trial though that it was strange that Wallace:

“Whilst I was in the room examining the body and the blood he came in smoking a cigarette, and he leant over in front of the sideboard and flicked the ash into a bowl upon the sideboard.”

McFall felt that this was unnatural and I have to say that I agree. We know that people react differently of course but Wallace’s actions are just strange. Of course it’s been stressed that we shouldn’t condemn someone because their demeanour was unusual and that’s correct of course but I think that it’s very valid to point out Wallace’s detachment in the face of his wife’s brutally murdered body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I say Pivotal, because although Wallace was a self proclaimed stoic, would any one not call the neighbours in at the moment of this terrible discovery? ,or would he carefully sidle around the body to light the gas mantle over the fireplace?

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.

[moste]

I say Pivotal, because although Wallace was a self proclaimed stoic, would any one not call the neighbours in at the moment of this terrible discovery? ,or would he carefully sidle around the body to light the gas mantle over the fireplace?

[moste]

Just thinking through his movements in the house. Rather than dashing through the place like wee Willy winkie ,its worth remembering that from the moment he entered.,he was having to deal with very poor lighting, like ‘dark’ . If I’m not mistaken Wallace said they left one gas light burning upstairs at all times. But on entering, he would be striking a match to initially light the back kitchen , then he goes into the middle living/dining room possibly lighting a gas bracket in the hallway bottom of stairs,we’ll say his match is still burning and he lights up this room, now he spots the door ripped off the cupboard, and coins spread around the floor, an innocent Wallace is now beginning to panic, he will now in my opinion, arm himself ,a poker I believe was not available, so anything, rolling pin , carving knife,etc. call out to Mr. Johnstone asking him to join him, then both would eliminate the Parlour before going upstairs. This would be an absolute given .For there to be even a 1 percent chance of an intruder being trapped in the house, to ignore this room and go upstairs would be a stupid move even for a moron.Regardless of Wallace’s answer to ‘ Did you believe there may have been an intruder still in the house’, ( 3 separate answers apparently) ). In reality ,it could not have been possible to ignore this feasibility . But anyway , he goes upstairs presumably lighting up the remainder of the rooms . I seem to recall a couple of burnt matches ,was it, one in the folds of the mackintosh, and one in the parlour doorway . With a dark front room Wallace needing to light one or both brackets by the chimney breast, would very likely be in the process of striking a match as he walked into the very familiar room ( picturing that there was no obstruction between door and mantelpiece )whereby a stumbling over the body would be likely.
When calling in the Johnston’s, was a gas mantle lit over the fireplace ? Or had he seen his wife’s body by match light then called in the neighbours ? could be important if not pivotal.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do find it odd, Herlock, that when Wallace sees the cupboard door broken off and realises something is badly amiss, he doesn't immediately check the whole of the downstairs first, including the parlour, before going upstairs. If he thinks for one second that someone up to no good may still be in the house, despite no obvious signs of forced entry, the obvious thing to do would be to check all the downstairs rooms first, for signs of life - Julia and/or Chummy. If Julia had invited this Chummy in, to wait for her husband's return, she'd have taken him into the parlour, so would Wallace have left that room until last? What was he expecting to find upstairs? Julia in bed with Chummy, both snoring soundly?

Love,

Caz
X

I'm not alone

[Dupin]

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.)

[caz]

Hi Caz

My understanding is that the records of his collections would identify the amount of company money that should have been in the cash box. It may have been too risky to lie about this as it was likely to be checked by the Prudential. He did, though, claim the denominations were different, I believe.

Indeed, especially as Wallace claimed that when he and Julia left the house together, all monies would be removed from the premises for safe keeping. Someone so careful to guard against burglary is even less likely to leave large sums of money on show, IMHO.

Cheers, etenguy.

So basically, Wallace was more worried about leaving any monies on the premises when both he and Julia went out, than he was about leaving Julia alone in the house with all the monies, including large amounts on show.

Did he think of Julia as a big old guard dog, growling and slavering at the first sniff of a juicy burglar?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Cheers for acknowledging it Ven

Of the two issues that you mention are both worth considering of course. I can only say that the differ in terms that it’s almost impossible (for me at least) to come up with a reason why Wallace might have lied about the music? To me this suggests an error of memory rather than a conscious lie.

The second point is certainly interesting though. If Wallace did actually ask the Johnston’s to wait outside then that’s suspicious in my book. I’ve discussed this point previously. Wallace either felt that there was someone inside preventing him from getting in or he was shamming ( I think the latter of course) but does anyone really see Wallace as the have-a-go-hero type? Or did Wallace have a reason for wanting to enter alone (after all he hadn’t expected the Johnston’s to have turned up.) Again, with apologies, I raise my ‘parlour door’ point.

We have Wallace returned after being sent on a wild goose chase, worried about his wife (note his first question to the Johnston’s) then for the first time ever he can’t get in (is someone trying to keep him out?) The sense of worry must have been increasing? He gets inside and finds the lights turned down and all is quiet. He goes into the kitchen and sees the cupboard door broken off (dispelling all thought of a possible innocent explanation) He’s now desperate to find Julia. He gets to the kitchen door with the parlour door within reach. A matter of 2 seconds work and he either finds Julia in the parlour or eliminates that room. No, he ignores it and goes upstairs first? Perhaps he wants to see if Julia has decided to do a few chemical experiments in his lab? Others say that the parlour was the least used room. Really? Is that an explanation? It was hardly a sealed vault. Who, when searching for a wife in peril, would stand next to a door and think “well, percentage-wise the parlour is probably the room Julia is least likely to be in?” They just wouldn’t. I genuinely, honestly can’t see why everyone doesn’t see this as strange behaviour? Apparently they don’t though so what can I say?

Perhaps William had planned one last look around to check that he hadn’t made any errors? Perhaps he’d forgotten to do something or check something. Now if William deliberately told Johnston to stay outside, despite the possible danger, then avoided the parlour to go upstairs then who knows.

I do find it odd, Herlock, that when Wallace sees the cupboard door broken off and realises something is badly amiss, he doesn't immediately check the whole of the downstairs first, including the parlour, before going upstairs. If he thinks for one second that someone up to no good may still be in the house, despite no obvious signs of forced entry, the obvious thing to do would be to check all the downstairs rooms first, for signs of life - Julia and/or Chummy. If Julia had invited this Chummy in, to wait for her husband's return, she'd have taken him into the parlour, so would Wallace have left that room until last? What was he expecting to find upstairs? Julia in bed with Chummy, both snoring soundly?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Just on the point about Wallace setting up Parry or Marsden. I certainly understand people making the point that Wallace was stupidly narrowing the field and that he couldn’t have known whether the dynamic duo had alibis or not. But when considering this point I’m reminded of Blackadder’s quote when asked who knew about the ‘secret’ plan to advance into No Man’s Land: “Field Marshall Haig; Field Marshall Haig’s servants; Field Marshall Haig’s servants tennis partners.”

The point being of course that the information about Wallace’s situation could have been known by pretty much any acquaintance (whether close or casual) of Parry or Marsden. This could have been dozens of people and of course it wouldn’t matter that these would largely have been unknowns. The possibility existed so there was an unknown amount of unnamed possible culprits. The police didn’t need another suspect to exonerate Wallace of course and neither did a jury. In short, I don’t think that if Wallace pointed the police in the direction of Parry and Marsden he was hampering himself in any way. I’d say that it was pretty much a free hit for Wallace.

Just read this, Herlock, and it will come as no surprise that I completely agree with you.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Key elements of his plan included:
[Q] The Qualtrough call to make it appear someone else was the killer
[C] The theft from the cash box to make it appear that robbery was the motive
[P] Killing Julia in the parlour to make it appear that a visitor had called

Hi CCJ,

If we assume Wallace made the call [he has no alibi, any more than Parry does] and killed his wife [hoping the fruitless trip to MGE would work as an alibi, making 'Qualtrough' the obvious suspect for getting him out of the way so he could commit the robbery and/or murder], Wallace could have done very little about the unforced entry, by someone who had to have certain knowledge about both himself and Julia; had to know about the chess club; had to know about the cash box and where it was kept; and had to know Julia's habits regarding callers in her husband's absence. The killer could in theory have gained that knowledge from a third party, but that's the only way I can think of, for the suspect pool to have been widened, and all these conditions would inevitably point as much to Wallace himself as it would to the limited number of potential suspects who could fit this narrow bill. I'm struggling to see how a guilty Wallace could have done anything about this under the circumstances. Is there any better plan he could have come up with, which would have suggested that virtually anyone could have murdered his wife?

I know I keep banging on about reasonable doubt, but all Wallace had to do was to make it possible - not even plausible or likely - for someone other than himself to have planned this, using the phone call, and committed the crime while Wallace was out looking for MGE. He didn't need to frame anyone in particular, nor have another suspect arrested and charged.

I do feel the blood issue is pivotal here, because Wallace is only off the hook if there is absolutely no possibility of him getting out of that house when he did, clean as a whistle. As it is, it's only the reasonable doubt issue that leads me to presume his innocence. I can see nothing that actually proves it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock and all - proper thread this. Moste digging away and Caz well in the mix now too.

All makes for a fascinating thread. Only problem is I struggle to keep up. I start to come down on one side and then something else pops up to make me think again. That's even without CCJ's algebra!

Anyway, with regard to the recent posts about Parry and his possible involvement, I have in mind that Parry was strongly advised by his father never to talk to others about the case. If I'm not completely imagining things there, could you say what that was all about.

Many thanks,
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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hmmm, I know people who suffer from depression, who don't stop loving their partners, or being loved by them.

Conversely, one can also be bloody depressed if one is stuck with a spouse one can no longer stand.

So I don't think depression, by itself, can tell us much about the Wallace marriage.

Having said that, I can't see it being a bed of roses either, all things considered!

Love,

Caz
X

Fair point Caz.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The last three payments were:

19-Jan-31 £10.11.0 paid in 21-Jan
26-Jan-31 £52.16.6 paid in 29-Jan
26-Jan-31 £ 2. 9. 9 paid in 29-Jan

(Source: Munro case files on WWH site)

The two things about Crewe that stand out for me are (1) he wants to support Wallace and (2) he gets confused about the figures.

In his 5-Jan-31 statement he says: "His accounts with the Company are in perfect order." He repeats this in court and it seems to be a linchpin he does not want to contradict.

His account of the payments in court is so confusing that I think everyone just became dazed and wanted to move on.

So it could be that there was indeed a shortfall from Wallace or that Crewe was simply muddled in his own mind.

Thanks for finding these Nick. I can’t think how I missed them

Im still convinced that there’s mention of William’s visit to The Pru with Edwin though.

...

It’s worth noting how soon after Julia’s murder William went back to work when The Pru would surely have found a temporary replacement and allowed him time off to mourn and make arrangements if he’d asked. Might we also add this to the fact that on the evening that Julia was found bludgeoned to death William wanted to sleep at home. It doesn’t prove anything of course but it’s at least a little strange.

......

Why did he pay in 2 amounts on the same day?

Why did he bother pay in the day after his wife was brutally murdered?

What did he pay in as his takings had been stolen?

Why did he Crewe believe that £18 was outstanding?

Why would Crewe believe that the police had retained some of Wallace’s money?

Had the police retained some money?

Why did Wallace tell him this (as it appears that he couldn’t have found out any other way)?


The questions mount.

[caz]

We can add Moste’s Theory For me there was certainly something strange about the marriage. Then we have Julia’s lies. How can we claim a happy contented Wallace when he admits to depression?

Hmmm, I know people who suffer from depression, who don't stop loving their partners, or being loved by them.

Conversely, one can also be bloody depressed if one is stuck with a spouse one can no longer stand.

So I don't think depression, by itself, can tell us much about the Wallace marriage.

Having said that, I can't see it being a bed of roses either, all things considered!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This is the case for generating theories! I'm logging this as the Coincidental Accomplice Theory. Phone call and its motive the same as Accomplice theory, the murder as Wallace theory. The coincidence is that Wallace uses the unexpected call as cover for his long-planned murder scheme, while Parry and his associate become unintentionally embroiled in murder. Is that it a nutshell, Herlock?

As a writer, I love the drama of the accomplice thief finding a dead body in the parlour... not what he was expecting that night! But I won't comment on theory just yet.

Ingenious idea, and it might not have been quite so coincidental if Wallace suspected Julia - rightly or wrongly - of having a 'friendship' with a man who wasn't her husband. So when he gets the Qualtrough message, he immediately suspects he's being got out of the way by this male friend, so the naughty pair can enjoy some slap and tickle while he's off on his fool's errand. "Julia must have tipped the blackguard off that I would be at the chess club to get the message. The crafty cow! Right, so if that's their little game, I'll play along." So he mentions the call casually to Julia over lunch on the Tuesday, watching like a hawk for her reaction. Will she encourage him to go? Of course she will! And so she does [not because she really wants him out of the way, but because it sounds like a good business proposition]. At tea, they discuss the appointment further and Wallace drops in the name Qualtrough, again to see the effect. Although Julia doesn't react, she seems even keener to be rid of him, even suggesting he will be late if he doesn't get a move on. So he puts on his mackintosh, meaning to stay near the house, watching to see if lover man shows up, but then sees Julia in the parlour, plumping up the cushions and humming a tune, and he sees red. "What's the cow doing in there, if she's not preparing for a saucy soiree, the minute I leave the house?" And that seals Julia's fate.

It would make a great fictional drama, if nothing else!

Love,

Caz
X