Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[ColdCaseJury]

Antony, for some reason I get the impression that you are critical of my opinion that Wallace was guilty or that you seem to imply that I’m biased. If I do express my strong belief in Wallace’s guilt my forthrightness has been shaped in reaction to the blatant and constant bias exhibited by Rod over the past year or so. And, I might add, exhibited in a very inpleasant manner. It sometimes appears to me, and I’m not alone in this, that there’s sometimes an almost superhuman effort to see nothing ever wrong, suspicious or inexplicable in Wallace’s behaviour and yet when there’s something similar for the accomplice or Parry himself it’s written off as “well he must have panicked!”

I’d just like to remind everyone if I may that there is only one poster on here who claims that it’s case closed....and it’s not me.

I welcome all opinion Antony. I just don’t feel that I’ve said anything particularly controversial.

HS, you haven't said anything controversial. I don't think you're biased. Indeed, along with AS, I think you have adduced some of the strongest arguments for Wallace's guilt that I've ever seen.

I think you might be referring to my "hand over to HS" comment which was intended to be humorous (perhaps humour is not a strong suit for a true crime writer!) because you normally come back with robust arguments. Hopefully, this post will allay any misunderstandings.

Re: panicked. In my reconstruction of Accomplice I suggested he was more enraged and was moved to murder like a red mist. On this thread, I also pointed to the murder of Kathryn Bishop as evidence where this was alleged to have happened recently in a robbery gone wrong. I've also pointed out similarities to the Effie Ratley murder, some of the parallels of which support your contention in the Wallace case.

There are many problems with any non-Wallace theory, but there are also problems with the Wallace theory, too. Only last night I was talking to a former Detective Superintendent who thinks Wallace is guilty, but also agreed that the police not finding the weapon or bloodied gloves etc was surprising given how extensively they claimed to have searched. The involvement of the cash box, in my opinion, is another. And so on.

So, please don't feel put out. No offence was intended. Keep Calm And Carry On Sleuthing!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I didn't post on Casebook for a while, and have missed many posts on this thread, so may I ask what's happened to God Crosby? Sorry, slip of the pen: Rod Crosby.

Graham

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS, you haven't said anything controversial. I don't think you're biased. Indeed, along with AS, I think you have adduced some of the strongest arguments for Wallace's guilt that I've ever seen.

I think you might be referring to my "hand over to HS" comment which was intended to be humorous (perhaps humour is not a strong suit for a true crime writer!) because you normally come back with robust arguments. Hopefully, this post will allay any misunderstandings.

Re: panicked. In my reconstruction of Accomplice I suggested he was more enraged and was moved to murder like a red mist. On this thread, I also pointed to the murder of Kathryn Bishop as evidence where this was alleged to have happened recently in a robbery gone wrong. I've also pointed out similarities to the Effie Ratley murder, some of the parallels of which support your contention in the Wallace case.

There are many problems with any non-Wallace theory, but there are also problems with the Wallace theory, too. Only last night I was talking to a former Detective Superintendent who thinks Wallace is guilty, but also agreed that the police not finding the weapon or bloodied gloves etc was surprising given how extensively they claimed to have searched. The involvement of the cash box, in my opinion, is another. And so on.

So, please don't feel put out. No offence was intended. Keep Calm And Carry On Sleuthing!

Message received and understood.

No problem Antony

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’d like to put a point out for comment/opinion.

If Julia’s Murder was pre-planned by William then I’d suggest that it stands to reason that he would have taken some precaution against blood spatter. Under time pressure he wouldn’t have wanted to have been drenched in blood leaving a time consuming clean up operation. Being drenched in blood would also give him the problem of potentially leaving blood traces elsewhere in the house; not only at the location of his clean up operation but also in areas leading to that spot (in all likelihood the bathroom.) Its my opinion of course that Wallace used the mackintosh as a makeshift shield against blood spatter.

If the murder of Julia was a spur-of-the-moment event (as per the accomplice theory) then the killer wouldn’t have taken any measures to prevent blood spatter and so would have been overwhelmingly likely to have had a considerable amount of blood on him. Isn’t it perhaps strange that he left no blood traces as he turned off the gas jets? That he walked around an unfamiliar house in the dark but left not a single trace of blood outside of the Parlour? Would he have broken the cupboard door off whilst Julia was still alive with the noise that it would have made (surely unlikely if he was trying to remain undetected?) If he did it after Julia was dead then again we might ask - why no blood on the cupboard? If he left by the backdoor and back gate, as seems likely, why no blood on either of those? No spots of blood on the carpets or on a wall as he brushed past in the dark.

Like much in this case I’m not saying that this is impossible but I’d suggest that the lack of blood anywhere outside of the Parlour speaks more against Wallace than a sneak-thief in my opinion.

[Abby Normal]

I’d like to put a point out for comment/opinion.

If Julia’s Murder was pre-planned by William then I’d suggest that it stands to reason that he would have taken some precaution against blood spatter. Under time pressure he wouldn’t have wanted to have been drenched in blood leaving a time consuming clean up operation. Being drenched in blood would also give him the problem of potentially leaving blood traces elsewhere in the house; not only at the location of his clean up operation but also in areas leading to that spot (in all likelihood the bathroom.) Its my opinion of course that Wallace used the mackintosh as a makeshift shield against blood spatter.

If the murder of Julia was a spur-of-the-moment event (as per the accomplice theory) then the killer wouldn’t have taken any measures to prevent blood spatter and so would have been overwhelmingly likely to have had a considerable amount of blood on him. Isn’t it perhaps strange that he left no blood traces as he turned off the gas jets? That he walked around an unfamiliar house in the dark but left not a single trace of blood outside of the Parlour? Would he have broken the cupboard door off whilst Julia was still alive with the noise that it would have made (surely unlikely if he was trying to remain undetected?) If he did it after Julia was dead then again we might ask - why no blood on the cupboard? If he left by the backdoor and back gate, as seems likely, why no blood on either of those? No spots of blood on the carpets or on a wall as he brushed past in the dark.

Like much in this case I’m not saying that this is impossible but I’d suggest that the lack of blood anywhere outside of the Parlour speaks more against Wallace than a sneak-thief in my opinion.

Hi hs
Yes it does. One would think that some blood traces would have been found in the kitchen on or around the cash box, the broken door, the spilt coins, as it would seem that an intruder would have killed her first and then gone into the kitchen.

[harry]

If we think of possibilities,and I guess we have to,then the first blow may have been struck in the kitchen.Remember not all blows broke the skin and bled,but the first blow may have rendered Julia insensible.Then she was carried into he front room?
Although it is true that people in the thirties respected privacy,and may not have been frequent visitors,but they used the same roads for walking,same shops for shopping,same pubs to drink in and so on,so were continually in contact.
Believe me,in that terraced street,very little would have been unknown.Mrs Johnson wh en giving evidence speaks of something being unlikely.She wasn't asked to explain that remark,but in the contex it was given I can well understand the defence not pressing her to explain what was unlikely.

[moste]

As part of Wallace's plan

I’d like to put a point out for comment/opinion.

If Julia’s Murder was pre-planned by William then I’d suggest that it stands to reason that he would have taken some precaution against blood spatter. Under time pressure he wouldn’t have wanted to have been drenched in blood leaving a time consuming clean up operation. Being drenched in blood would also give him the problem of potentially leaving blood traces elsewhere in the house; not only at the location of his clean up operation but also in areas leading to that spot (in all likelihood the bathroom.) Its my opinion of course that Wallace used the mackintosh as a makeshift shield against blood spatter.

If the murder of Julia was a spur-of-the-moment event (as per the accomplice theory) then the killer wouldn’t have taken any measures to prevent blood spatter and so would have been overwhelmingly likely to have had a considerable amount of blood on him. Isn’t it perhaps strange that he left no blood traces as he turned off the gas jets? That he walked around an unfamiliar house in the dark but left not a single trace of blood outside of the Parlour? Would he have broken the cupboard door off whilst Julia was still alive with the noise that it would have made (surely unlikely if he was trying to remain undetected?) If he did it after Julia was dead then again we might ask - why no blood on the cupboard? If he left by the backdoor and back gate, as seems likely, why no blood on either of those? No spots of blood on the carpets or on a wall as he brushed past in the dark.

Like much in this case I’m not saying that this is impossible but I’d suggest that the lack of blood anywhere outside of the Parlour speaks more against Wallace than a sneak-thief in my opinion.

Alternative method for using the mackintosh as a means of protection:
Could it have been thrown over her head prior to the blows being meted out? thus keeping the outcome momentarily under wraps, so to speak. Then, after the deed is done,( to throw a red herring into the plot,) scoops an amount of blood around the room being very careful not to get any on himself? Now the only set back would be forensics finding fibres of gabardine in the wounds, but luckily for the killer, John Edward MacFall, was the leading pathologist who attended, and he believed he was clever enough to judge the time of death by squeezing the corpse's body to confirm rigor mortis progress. LOL. Seriously though, any fibres found could have been as a result of Julia trying to defend herself with the garment, for all the police knew.

[moste]

Time of death.

MacFalls time of death estimates ,are a complete delusion.

Roger Wilkes author of 'Wallace The final verdict', tracked down a very revered home office criminal pathologist, the eminent Professor Keith Simpson in 1984, to ask his opinion of MacFalls, efforts . Rigor he explains is far too variable in its onset and course. Indeed it sometimes doesn't follow even the rough rules, and occasionally doesn't even develop at all. Simpson added, MacFall would be strongly cross-examined nowadays(1984)and his fellow pathologist would urge him to be much more wary about giving an exact time. It is one of the really 'boggy' areas of forensic medicine.

[etenguy]

I’d like to put a point out for comment/opinion.

Playing devil's advocate as I am yet to come to a conclusion about who killed Julia Wallace.

If Julia’s Murder was pre-planned by William then I’d suggest that it stands to reason that he would have taken some precaution against blood spatter.

Given the rest of the planning required if Wallace was the killer, I think we have to take this as read.

Under time pressure he wouldn’t have wanted to have been drenched in blood leaving a time consuming clean up operation. Being drenched in blood would also give him the problem of potentially leaving blood traces elsewhere in the house; not only at the location of his clean up operation but also in areas leading to that spot (in all likelihood the bathroom.) Its my opinion of course that Wallace used the mackintosh as a makeshift shield against blood spatter.

The mackintosh could well have been used that way but it is insufficient, if Wallace used it as a shield he would probably have blood on him nonetheless. Of course he may have had other protection also covering his arms, head or feet. But the basic premise that he would take precautions to avoid blood splatter is highly likely to be correct.

If the murder of Julia was a spur-of-the-moment event (as per the accomplice theory) then the killer wouldn’t have taken any measures to prevent blood spatter and so would have been overwhelmingly likely to have had a considerable amount of blood on him.

Possibly, or he improvised with the mackintosh or he always planned to batter Julia. We assume the missing poker and iron bar were the weapon but we don't know. Why use both when one was sufficient. Perhaps the murderer brought a weapon with him?

Isn’t it perhaps strange that he left no blood traces as he turned off the gas jets? That he walked around an unfamiliar house in the dark but left not a single trace of blood outside of the Parlour? Would he have broken the cupboard door off whilst Julia was still alive with the noise that it would have made (surely unlikely if he was trying to remain undetected?) If he did it after Julia was dead then again we might ask - why no blood on the cupboard? If he left by the backdoor and back gate, as seems likely, why no blood on either of those? No spots of blood on the carpets or on a wall as he brushed past in the dark.

If he protected himself from blood splatter, improvised or planned, the lack of additional blood as you describe would be as pertinent for Wallace as a 3rd party killer.

Like much in this case I’m not saying that this is impossible but I’d suggest that the lack of blood anywhere outside of the Parlour speaks more against Wallace than a sneak-thief in my opinion.

I find the problem with this case is that the evidence can be viewed in many different ways and I can't find a piece which really points to one killer more than the other.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The mackintosh could well have been used that way but it is insufficient, if Wallace used it as a shield he would probably have blood on him nonetheless. Of course he may have had other protection also covering his arms, head or feet. But the basic premise that he would take precautions to avoid blood splatter is highly likely to be correct..

My suggestion is that Wallace might have draped the mackintosh over his left forearm holding it in place with his left hand. He’d then hold his arm parallel to his chin and allow the mackintosh to hang to the floor. This could have shielded 95% of his body. And as blood spatter is random Wallace might also have been a bit fortunate. He might only have gotten blood on his right hand/arm as he used it to rain down the blows.

[etenguy]

My suggestion is that Wallace might have draped the mackintosh over his left forearm holding it in place with his left hand. He’d then hold his arm parallel to his chin and allow the mackintosh to hang to the floor. This could have shielded 95% of his body. And as blood spatter is random Wallace might also have been a bit fortunate. He might only have gotten blood on his right hand/arm as he used it to rain down the blows.

I am trying to get a mental image of the picture you paint. The main vulnerability to blood splatter in that scenario would be the head and below the knee, since the mackintosh probably wouldn't reach the floor.

Wallace had not one drop of blood on him - so if it was him and he used the mackintosh in this way, he was lucky not to have any blood at all reach him. Of course, exactly the same could be said of an accomplice. But with such planning, Wallace is unlikely to have left anything to luck - I suspect if it was him, he had other protection also or instead.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am trying to get a mental image of the picture you paint. The main vulnerability to blood splatter in that scenario would be the head and below the knee, since the mackintosh probably wouldn't reach the floor.

Wallace had not one drop of blood on him - so if it was him and he used the mackintosh in this way, he was lucky not to have any blood at all reach him. Of course, exactly the same could be said of an accomplice. But with such planning, Wallace is unlikely to have left anything to luck - I suspect if it was him, he had other protection also or instead.

With Wallace kneeling a full length mackintosh would easily reach the three feet or so from his mouth to the carpet. All that would be in the line of fire would have been the top two thirds of his head and his moving right arm.

[etenguy]

With Wallace kneeling a full length mackintosh would easily reach the three feet or so from his mouth to the carpet. All that would be in the line of fire would have been the top two thirds of his head and his moving right arm.

I didn't have him kneeling, certainly not for the first blow. I haven't seen the autopsy report, it may provide some insights into the attack angle etc..

If he was kneeling, protection would have been fuller.

[Abby Normal]

just some food for thought.
I still place emphasis on the possibility of an unsub, not Wallace or Parry/accomplice. 40% Wallace 35% parry/accomplice 25% unsub.


I think most folks on here concentrate on Wallace or parry, and for good reason but:


we have the Ansfield burgler

we have someone else that might have known his chess club routine.

Perhaps thats why it wasnt done when he was at the chess club-because if it was someone at the chess club, it would be suspicious if they were missing that night.

Or it was someone that didnt know him from the chess club-someone who didnt know him atl all. and the qualtrough call was just a prank and bad luck.


I dont know--- its my least favorite choice, but one that may be overlooked.

[Graham]

Something else occurred to me. It seems that Wallace hadn't been to the chess club since the previous October, so how did the caller know he'd be there on the night he made the call? Or was it just a lucky guess? Or what?

G