Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

True enough.

Didn’t Julia’s sister turn up after her murder though? I know that she requested Julia’s coat. I wonder why she didn’t stick around for the funeral?

Maybe she was too upset to attend the funeral...
Maybe she was the 'grasping' type who arrive like vultures, for 'items' they consider themselves entitled to...
Maybe she thought Wallace guilty...

No point in speculating.

[cobalt]

You can't just turn up at a registrar and give a name and age, otherwise no bigamist in history would ever have been caught. Judging by my own parents, birth certificates were required from at least the 1940s, and the marriage certificate contained the occupation of each father, drawn from the birth certificate itself.

I don't know about the Murphy research but it is clearly well respected on this site. We have to be careful when making sweeping statements about earlier cultures, but it seems fair to conclude that family respectability was highly regarded and any children born out of wedlock were often disguised within the family circle. A woman is entitled to shave some years off her age but 17 is pushing things a bit far, and would be noticeable to many around her, certainly her husband.

I am still interested as to how the murder weapon was disposed of, and why two potential weapons were apparently removed from the house.

[RodCrosby]

Sorry, but I know you are wrong, at least for the era we are talking about. Bigamy was quite common, and was obviously not stopped at the point of registration (q.v. George Joseph Smith)

I have studied probably hundreds of BMD certificates, as a genealogist of nearly 40 years standing.
(I discovered my own father's technical illegitimacy, from studying his birth certificate at age 15, much to his astonishment. I later deduced the reason why, and tracked down his unknown half-sisters in Australia, as I mentioned on the other thread...

I started with a theory.
I had no idea whether the person or persons even existed.
I had no idea of their name(s), if they existed.
I had no idea where on the planet they might be, if they existed.
All I knew was that if they existed, they vanished over 80 years ago.

After cogitating the problem and much research, I picked up a phone and dialled a number in Tasmania.
And I was right first time...

And it is a precept of English law that no-one can be a witness to the circumstances of their own birth (rather obviously), q.v. R v Joyce...

[RodCrosby]

Julia Wallace's death certificate (as usual for the era, not very informative...)

[RodCrosby]

I don't know about the Murphy research but it is clearly well respected on this site. We have to be careful when making sweeping statements about earlier cultures, but it seems fair to conclude that family respectability was highly regarded and any children born out of wedlock were often disguised within the family circle. A woman is entitled to shave some years off her age but 17 is pushing things a bit far, and would be noticeable to many around her, certainly her husband.

I am still interested as to how the murder weapon was disposed of, and why two potential weapons were apparently removed from the house.

I've just improved upon Murphy's "research" with a couple of hours Googling this morning, shining a rather different light on Julia, and exploding his claim that she "disappeared" for 35 years... (not that I believe her antecedents have any bearing whatsoever on her murder, in any case)

Wallace supposed that the small poker had already been thrown out by Julia (the Police seemingly made no further enquiry), and said he knew nothing of the iron bar in the parlour.

Certainly, no evidence was offered to contradict him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you got a copy of the certificate from when you married yourself? A match made in heaven of course as you are so obviously completely in love with yourself as evidenced by your constant and endless need for boasting and ego-boosting

[RodCrosby]

I tried being modest once, but wasn't very good at it...

Anyhow, for those interested in the case:-

[cobalt]

I do not think that the age of Julia Wallace is connected to why she was murdered, so this is simply a debating point.
However I very much doubt she was 70 years old.

When my parents married in 1948 they were required to submit their birth certificates. It was then, to my mother's horror, she realised at the age of 24 that the woman who had brought her up was not her mother. She had been born out of wedlock and raised by an aunt, a common enough disguise for illegitimacy at that time I believe. Another method was for a mother to have a 'late child' which was actually the child of her eldest daughter.

I appreciate procedures might have been tightened up a bit after the war, but I don't think it was ever a case of just turning up at a register and offering a name, age and address.


Regarding the poker and the metal bar, there was not much more the police could do if Wallace claimed that the former had been thrown out and he had no knowledge of the latter. It was simply his word against the cleaning lady's.
His story is not convincing: why throw out a poker unless it is to be replaced? Then again the cleaning lady was being 'led' by the police to notice anything missing from the house, so perhaps wished to helpful and ended up supplying inaccurate information.

[Abby Normal]

I do not think that the age of Julia Wallace is connected to why she was murdered, so this is simply a debating point.
However I very much doubt she was 70 years old.

When my parents married in 1948 they were required to submit their birth certificates. It was then, to my mother's horror, she realised at the age of 24 that the woman who had brought her up was not her mother. She had been born out of wedlock and raised by an aunt, a common enough disguise for illegitimacy at that time I believe. Another method was for a mother to have a 'late child' which was actually the child of her eldest daughter.

I appreciate procedures might have been tightened up a bit after the war, but I don't think it was ever a case of just turning up at a register and offering a name, age and address.


Regarding the poker and the metal bar, there was not much more the police could do if Wallace claimed that the former had been thrown out and he had no knowledge of the latter. It was simply his word against the cleaning lady's.
His story is not convincing: why throw out a poker unless it is to be replaced? Then again the cleaning lady was being 'led' by the police to notice anything missing from the house, so perhaps wished to helpful and ended up supplying inaccurate information.

nah, she gave specific info about them, including even using the bar recently.
to me the missing bar and poker and Wallace staying mum about them are big red flags for me for his guilt.

[cobalt]

Fair enough.

How do you think Wallace disposed of the murder weapon so successfully? I will say weapon singular, although the cleaning lady mentioned two objects missing.
He had to catch a tram within 10 minutes of committing the murder so it would have made sense to dump it before he boarded the tram. The police searched the local area but drew a blank.

He might have dumped it on his wanderings to Menlove Gardens, but nothing turned up in later years. Drains, for example, have traps that are cleaned regularly.

[RodCrosby]

When my parents married in 1948 they were required to submit their birth certificates.
They probably just imagined they did, when in fact they did not need to.

I appreciate procedures might have been tightened up a bit after the war, but I don't think it was ever a case of just turning up at a register and offering a name, age and address.

https://www.british-genealogy.com/archive/index.php/t-66084.html

Regarding the poker and the metal bar, there was not much more the police could do if Wallace claimed that the former had been thrown out and he had no knowledge of the latter. It was simply his word against the cleaning lady's.
His story is not convincing: why throw out a poker unless it is to be replaced? Then again the cleaning lady was being 'led' by the police to notice anything missing from the house, so perhaps wished to helpful and ended up supplying inaccurate information.
Wallace surmised it: "She must have thrown it out with the ashes."
Again, this was women's work in 1931. Men left the running of the house to women (even employing a charwoman, rather than take any interest (let alone assist) in 'menial' work themselves)

As for Wallace taking the bar to Menlove Gardens...

"There is no place, apparently, where he could have dropped it on his way ; the only possible place, the open space between the house and the tram, has been combed, and the drains searched, and no trace can be found of it. How the weapon was disposed of is a mystery. One would have thought that, if he was carrying it, the conductor of the tram-car would have noticed him, if he was carrying an iron bar or a poker, and he did not... "
Mr. Justice Wright, summing-up in Rex v Wallace

[Herlock Sholmes]

The disposal of the weapon is an unknown. This in no way means that Wallace didn’t dispose of it. Let’s face it, he might have been planning this murder for weeks if not months, giving him plenty of time to find a place to dispose of the weapon.

Isn’t it typical of the varying standards applied to this case by Wallace defenders . At any other time during the case the police are utterly useless, corrupt incompetents! And yet when searching for the weapon they are diligent, honest and meticulous.

Strange that

[RodCrosby]

The disposal of the weapon is an unknown. This in no way means that Wallace didn’t dispose of it. Let’s face it, he might have been planning this murder for weeks if not months, giving him plenty of time to find a place to dispose of the weapon.
Like where? Any better fancies than your ash-bins behind the locked gates?
Isn’t it typical of the varying standards applied to this case by Wallace defenders . At any other time during the case the police are utterly useless, corrupt incompetents! And yet when searching for the weapon they are diligent, honest and meticulous.
The Police also enlisted the Sanitary Department's help.
Strange that

Not half as strange as someone who obsessively flogs a dead theory that was laughed out of court in May 1931...

[Herlock Sholmes]

a) to say that you know that all gates were definitely locked is a lie.

b) that the case is still debated and only one delusional person says that it’s solved does not entitle the suggestion of Wallace’s guilt to be called ‘a dead theory.’

c) a jury found him guilty initially. He was never exonerated properly.

d) cutting and posting is not debating. It shows the absence of debating skills.

e) your getting worse

[RodCrosby]

c) a jury found him guilty initially. He was never exonerated properly.

yawn...

"The case of Mr. Wallace does not differ in principle from that of any other defendant who has been acquitted of a serious charge by the verdict of a jury..."
J.R. Clynes, (Home Secretary), House of Commons, 22nd May 1931

Do you have anything other than disinformation, prejudice or fancy to support your weird obsession?