Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But it does not give a convincing explanation of how it caught fire. If Julia was struck as she lit the fire, and we know that the blood splatter was to the left of the fireplace, it is reasonable to infer she fell forward after the first blow, her head landing by the foot of the armchair.

Wallace believed the killer now retrieved the mackintosh from the hall... surely he would have stood in front of the armchair and the unconscious Julia and not on the hearth by a hot fire to deliver more blows.

Under the HS scenario the mackintosh is used for the first blow, but Julia would still be between the fire and the killer (Wallace) or to the left of the fire; so again, it is hard to see how the mackintosh ignites. I think HS suggested that Wallace helped lite the fire and it caught alight then, although it is hard to fathom why Wallace would stand on the hearth holding a mackintosh when the fire was being lit. What do you think, HS?

P.S. In his memoir (from early 1932 I believe), Wallace says he could think of no explanation of how the burnt mackintosh came to be in the front room, and accepted the suggestion that his wife put it around her shoulders, although he had never known her do this. In the John Bull articles (April 1932), he suggests the killer used it as a shield. Clearly, Wallace was thinking very hard about how someone else could have perpetrated the crime a year after he had been freed.

I think that the mackintosh might have served 2 purposes. To protect Wallace from blood spatter and to get Julia into the Parlour. I think that when she closed the door on Alan Close William asked her to bring in his mackintosh. He was standing in front of the mirror adjusting or pretending to adjust his tie. Maybe as he bent to try and pick up the bar the coat hung in the flames and caught fire. As Julia was helping him put out the flames he struck her. Maybe she fell onto the fire grate singeing her dress and Wallace pull her away from the fire before applying the finishing blows.

I think it’s much harder to come up with a scenario that gets the mackintosh from being over her shoulders to being bunched up underneath her body when she fell on her front.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the most obvious answer re the mac is that she had it on when she was attacked-it would explain her burnt skirt and the mac-and that she was attacked (either by wallace or someone else)while either lighting or standing near the fire.


I think the second most likely scenario is the killer used it to block the blood spatter and or wipe blood off himself and then jammed it under her to obsfuscate.


I could see either wallace or someone else doing both, but the first scenario points more toward a visiter and the second toward wallace.


I have little doubt though that she was standing near the fire in the parlor when she was attacked.

Hi Abby,

The problem for me with the idea of Julia having the Mac on when she was attacked would be the question of why the killer, when Julia had fallen to the ground, have bothered to take it off then shove it underneath her dead body?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. P.S. In his memoir (from early 1932 I believe), Wallace says he could think of no explanation of how the burnt mackintosh came to be in the front room, and accepted the suggestion that his wife put it around her shoulders, although he had never known her do this. In the John Bull articles (April 1932), he suggests the killer used it as a shield. Clearly, Wallace was thinking very hard about how someone else could have perpetrated the crime a year after he had been freed.

Either that or he was simply gloating by explaining how he’d done it?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

The problem for me with the idea of Julia having the Mac on when she was attacked would be the question of why the killer, when Julia had fallen to the ground, have bothered to take it off then shove it underneath her dead body?

HI HS and Happy holidays

perhaps because it fell off her or was pulled off her during the attack and just ended up underneath her that way. or after it came off her the killer used to wipe blood off himself and shoved it under her-or maybe it was still smouldering and he shoved it under her to put it out??

[etenguy]

I think that the mackintosh might have served 2 purposes. To protect Wallace from blood spatter and to get Julia into the Parlour. I think that when she closed the door on Alan Close William asked her to bring in his mackintosh. He was standing in front of the mirror adjusting or pretending to adjust his tie. Maybe as he bent to try and pick up the bar the coat hung in the flames and caught fire. As Julia was helping him put out the flames he struck her. Maybe she fell onto the fire grate singeing her dress and Wallace pull her away from the fire before applying the finishing blows.

I think it’s much harder to come up with a scenario that gets the mackintosh from being over her shoulders to being bunched up underneath her body when she fell on her front.

Hi Herlock

I am averse to any scenario that requires two consecutive accidental burnings in succession (possible but less likely than a single incident). But like you I believe the mackintosh must have served two purposes (whether Wallace or the accomplice), but that the mac and skirt were burnt in one incident.

Like you, I believe it unlikely Julia was wearing the mackintosh, either properly or just across her shoulders. Wallace tells us he had never known her to do that in the past. That leaves Julia carrying the mackintosh for some reason, either in response to Wallace asking for it or - well I cannot think of a good reason to bring it into the parlour for the accomplice but there may be one. She then fell on or against the fire either as a result of being battered or a trip. The coat fell under her skirt/dress and the burning occurred. The killer then opportunistically - or planned - uses the mac as a shield during the attack.

This scenario makes it far more likely that Wallace was the killer - but is not conclusive.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Herlock

I am averse to any scenario that requires two consecutive accidental burnings in succession (possible but less likely than a single incident). But like you I believe the mackintosh must have served two purposes (whether Wallace or the accomplice), but that the mac and skirt were burnt in one incident.

Like you, I believe it unlikely Julia was wearing the mackintosh, either properly or just across her shoulders. Wallace tells us he had never known her to do that in the past. That leaves Julia carrying the mackintosh for some reason, either in response to Wallace asking for it or - well I cannot think of a good reason to bring it into the parlour for the accomplice but there may be one. She then fell on or against the fire either as a result of being battered or a trip. The coat fell under her skirt/dress and the burning occurred. The killer then opportunistically - or planned - uses the mac as a shield during the attack.

This scenario makes it far more likely that Wallace was the killer - but is not conclusive.

Hi eten-I totally agree with you about the part where they must have been burnt together-which means more than likely she had it on in some manner or was at least holding it.

[moste]

Why would the accomplice bother bolting the front door as he’d have no way of being sure that Wallace wouldn’t return the way that he went out...by the back door?

We might suggest that he bolted both doors; only unbolting the back door when he made his escape but we could still ask why he would have bothered.

Wallace’s journey to and from Menlove Gardens took around an hour or so. The accomplice could have expected Wallace to have taken 15-20 minutes say in his search giving him ample time to complete his task. Even if he went in 15 minutes after Wallace left he would have had a full hour. Why bother bolting doors?

I can see Wallace, or any assailant locking both doors as a security measure, whereby there was no possible chance of being surprised by anyone.(remember, Johnston's had a key) For me the locking of both doors points directly at a preplanned murder.
The blooded car and glove box mitten smacks of someone with an axe to grind, possibly a very jealous and hateful axe!
I myself can not get my head around the whole 'Wallace lost in Allerton sequence of events.' the business of 'can someone help me with a directory ' and purposely involving other people in his plight, all pure poppycock.
Any agent that is employed in Wallace's capacity, traversing streets, taking on new clients and arranging meetings with prospective customers etc. Is going to have a map of Liverpool! if not carried on his person, then a directory at his home. If there is any argument to the contrary to this likelihood, then I would suggest there would almost certainly have been a large chart in the offices of the Prudential , for quick reference for any of the number of sales people at the company.
And further, if none of above applies , Wallace had all the next day to avail himself as to the exact location of 25 Menlove gardens east.

[moste]

CCJ. Quote:Wallace was thinking very hard about how someone else could have perpetrated the crime a year after he had been freed.

This sentence got me thinking. 'Since the police had closed the case and claimed they were not looking for anyone else,(they believed Wallace to be guilty)Would Wallace not go to any lengths to find his wife's killer? even employing private detectives, posting notices of a substantial reward, for any person who has any information to come forward , guaranteeing complete anonymity. Knowing someone out there had attacked and smashed his poor wife's head in, would he really buy himself a cosy little bungalow in the leafy suburbs on the Wirral, comforting himself filling out his diary, and musing how much his dear Julia would have loved this home with its lovely little garden.
Not me! and I suspect the rest of the menfolk on these threads, would likewise have left no stone unturned, persisting to the bitter end of your life ,to bring this foul beast to justice at all costs. Am I just being melodramatic here or do I have a point?

[moste]

That Wallace dude.... Guilty as hell!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I am averse to any scenario that requires two consecutive accidental burnings in succession (possible but less likely than a single incident). But like you I believe the mackintosh must have served two purposes (whether Wallace or the accomplice), but that the mac and skirt were burnt in one incident.

Like you, I believe it unlikely Julia was wearing the mackintosh, either properly or just across her shoulders. Wallace tells us he had never known her to do that in the past. That leaves Julia carrying the mackintosh for some reason, either in response to Wallace asking for it or - well I cannot think of a good reason to bring it into the parlour for the accomplice but there may be one. She then fell on or against the fire either as a result of being battered or a trip. The coat fell under her skirt/dress and the burning occurred. The killer then opportunistically - or planned - uses the mac as a shield during the attack.

This scenario makes it far more likely that Wallace was the killer - but is not conclusive.

Hi Eten,

Maybe Wallace just struck her as she was about to hand him the mackintosh and she and the mackintosh fell onto the fire grate causing the two burnings simultaneously?

“This scenario makes it far more likely that Wallace was the killer - but is not conclusive.”

A fair summary but I bet that I know someone who’ll call it ‘misinformation.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

CCJ. Quote:Wallace was thinking very hard about how someone else could have perpetrated the crime a year after he had been freed.

This sentence got me thinking. 'Since the police had closed the case and claimed they were not looking for anyone else,(they believed Wallace to be guilty)Would Wallace not go to any lengths to find his wife's killer? even employing private detectives, posting notices of a substantial reward, for any person who has any information to come forward , guaranteeing complete anonymity. Knowing someone out there had attacked and smashed his poor wife's head in, would he really buy himself a cosy little bungalow in the leafy suburbs on the Wirral, comforting himself filling out his diary, and musing how much his dear Julia would have loved this home with its lovely little garden.
Not me! and I suspect the rest of the menfolk on these threads, would likewise have left no stone unturned, persisting to the bitter end of your life ,to bring this foul beast to justice at all costs. Am I just being melodramatic here or do I have a point?

I’ve always wondered Moste why Wallace became so certain of Parry’s guilt after he’d been acquitted? Why wasn’t he so confident whilsttheinvestigation was under way?

[etenguy]

CCJ. Quote:Wallace was thinking very hard about how someone else could have perpetrated the crime a year after he had been freed.

This sentence got me thinking. 'Since the police had closed the case and claimed they were not looking for anyone else,(they believed Wallace to be guilty)Would Wallace not go to any lengths to find his wife's killer? even employing private detectives, posting notices of a substantial reward, for any person who has any information to come forward , guaranteeing complete anonymity. Knowing someone out there had attacked and smashed his poor wife's head in, would he really buy himself a cosy little bungalow in the leafy suburbs on the Wirral, comforting himself filling out his diary, and musing how much his dear Julia would have loved this home with its lovely little garden.
Not me! and I suspect the rest of the menfolk on these threads, would likewise have left no stone unturned, persisting to the bitter end of your life ,to bring this foul beast to justice at all costs. Am I just being melodramatic here or do I have a point?

There are, unfortunately, unsolved murders of wives, mothers and daughters every year. We do not have armies of sons, fathers and husbands seeking the unknown killers. A few do go to great lengths, but the majority do not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HI HS and Happy holidays

perhaps because it fell off her or was pulled off her during the attack and just ended up underneath her that way. or after it came off her the killer used to wipe blood off himself and shoved it under her-or maybe it was still smouldering and he shoved it under her to put it out??

Happy holidays to you too Abby

Personally I find it almost impossible to visualise the coat coming off during the attack but I wouldn’t call it impossible. My other point would be that the killer, if not Wallace, could have used anything to hand to wipe himself: a clean coat from the coat rack, a towel, the curtains etc without the effort of taking the coat from a dead body which would have had blood on it anyway?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry to go back but any comments (unbiased ones) about my post #1059?

[etenguy]

I’ve always wondered Moste why Wallace became so certain of Parry’s guilt after he’d been acquitted? Why wasn’t he so confident whilsttheinvestigation was under way?

It could be argued that this points to Wallace's innocence. It would have potentially been of great advantage to Wallace to have another man in the frame before or during his trial.