Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Timings cause us endless anxiety. The time Close arrived and left? The time Wallace left? How long to kill Julia? Would he have needed much of a clean up if any and how long would it have taken?

We can’t know any of the above for certain. All we really know is that Wallace would have had to have left no later than 6.50 to have made his first tram.

Can we simply state Wallace’s actions to show that it’s not impossible that the whole episode could have taken very little time. I think so..

Money removed from cash tin and cupboard door taken off - done before the murder.

The murder of Julia (including the use of the mackintosh) - 1.5 minutes (maybe a little less.)

The mackintosh and a pair of gloves protect Wallace from blood and with a little good fortune he gets none on his face.

Wallace wraps the gloves and the weapon in some paper - 1 minute.

Puts on coat, turns off the lights and leaves - 1 minute.

So that’s 3.5 minutes for the basic actions. Leaving 7.5-8.5 minutes wriggle room.

I can see the blood rising in some as I say this but when you pare it down, accept the Wallace wasn’t on the moon, accept that it’s not impossible to have a bit of favourable fortune this is not impossible. I’m not saying that 3.5 minutes after Julia closed the front door that Wallace left by the back door with Julia lying in the Parlour. What I’m saying is that the basic actions needn’t have taken much time at all. The 7.5-8.5 minutes ‘wriggle’ room allows time for a clean up if required and to do the staging of the robbery post mortem.

I’ve never really accepted the view of some that these events would have taken any great length of time. I’ll say again, timings cannot exonerate Wallace.

[ColdCaseJury]

Re: #1124

Happy New Year to everyone on the thread.

HS, my claim that the front door closed no earlier than 6.38 (based on testimony of the five teenagers) is consistent with Johnston and Holmes because we cannot assume the timings of Johnston and Holmes are "on the dot" accurate given what they said in their statements. A counter claim that the door was closed before then, however, is not consistent with the teenager statements.

I agree that Wallace can still be guilty if he had 7 minutes but only if it is something like your scenario (post #561), not Murphy's or the prosecution's. I need to examine your timeline.

Of course, someone could adhere to the Parry theory but only if the evidence that he was the killer is strong enough to overturn Brine's alibi. The police did a good job getting a statement from the Lloyds (which undermined Parry's alibi for the night of the call) but I wish they had done a similar job in finding out how Brine fixed Parry's leaving at "about 8:30pm" on the night of the murder etc. Without question, Brine's statement is crucial and yet it is the skimpiest in the police file. Even the clock maker (who tuned the Holy Trinity Church clock) had a lengthier statement. And the police did not follow up with anyone connected to Parry's alibi except Harold Denison (Brine's nephew). I can see why someone would be suspicious, but do we have grounds to reject Brine's statement? If we don't, Parry is eliminated as the killer based on the evidence available to us.

Today Parry would have been interviewed under caution on suspicion of perverting the course of justice (i.e. his misleading the police in his statement). In addition, his entire alibi for both nights would have been cross-checked. And we would not be talking now because if Parry was eliminated as the caller, then clearly its Wallace. On the other hand, if his alibi for the night of the murder also broke down then Parry has to be the leading contender. But if Parry truly confessed, "Look I made that call, but I'm not the killer" then every theory is on the table except Wallace and Parry! That's the inescapable logic of the case.

Parry was not properly incriminated or eliminated at the time. He would be today.

[etenguy]

Happy New Year to everyone on the thread.

HS, my claim that the front door closed no earlier than 6.38 (based on testimony of the five teenagers) is consistent with Johnston and Holmes because we cannot assume the timings of Johnston and Holmes are "on the dot" accurate given what they said in their statements. A counter claim that the door was closed before then, however, is not consistent with the teenager statements.

I agree that Wallace can still be guilty if he had 7 minutes but only if it is something like your scenario (post #561), not Murphy's or the prosecution's. I need to examine your timeline.

Of course, someone could adhere to the Parry theory but only if the evidence that he was the killer is strong enough to overturn Brine's alibi. The police did a good job getting a statement from the Lloyds (which undermined Parry's alibi for the night of the call) but I wish they had done a similar job in finding out how Brine fixed Parry's leaving at "about 8:30pm" on the night of the murder etc. Without question, Brine's statement is crucial and yet it is the skimpiest in the police file. Even the clock maker (who tuned the Holy Trinity Church clock) had a lengthier statement. And the police did not follow up with anyone connected to Parry's alibi except Harold Denison (Brine's nephew). I can see why someone would be suspicious, but do we have grounds to reject Brine's statement? If we don't, Parry is eliminated as the killer based on the evidence available to us.

Today Parry would have been interviewed under caution on suspicion of perverting the course of justice (i.e. his misleading the police in his statement). In addition, his entire alibi for both nights would have been cross-checked. And we would not be talking now because if Parry was eliminated as the caller, then clearly its Wallace. On the other hand, if his alibi for the night of the murder also broke down then Parry has to be the leading contender. But if Parry truly confessed, "Look I made that call, but I'm not the killer" then every theory is on the table except Wallace and Parry! That's the inescapable logic of the case.

Parry was not properly incriminated or eliminated at the time. He would be today.

Just to add to the lament about the less than thorough checking of Parry's alibi for the night of the murder, is the poor checking of Parkes' statement. Conspiracy theorists might see a Parry cover up - though I generally tend to favour **** up (apologies - I meant mistake) over conspiracy.

[ColdCaseJury]

Timings cause us endless anxiety. The time Close arrived and left? The time Wallace left? How long to kill Julia? Would he have needed much of a clean up if any and how long would it have taken?

We can’t know any of the above for certain. All we really know is that Wallace would have had to have left no later than 6.50 to have made his first tram.

Can we simply state Wallace’s actions to show that it’s not impossible that the whole episode could have taken very little time. I think so..

Money removed from cash tin and cupboard door taken off - done before the murder.

The murder of Julia (including the use of the mackintosh) - 1.5 minutes (maybe a little less.)

The mackintosh and a pair of gloves protect Wallace from blood and with a little good fortune he gets none on his face.

Wallace wraps the gloves and the weapon in some paper - 1 minute.

Puts on coat, turns off the lights and leaves - 1 minute.

So that’s 3.5 minutes for the basic actions. Leaving 7.5-8.5 minutes wriggle room.

I can see the blood rising in some as I say this but when you pare it down, accept the Wallace wasn’t on the moon, accept that it’s not impossible to have a bit of favourable fortune this is not impossible. I’m not saying that 3.5 minutes after Julia closed the front door that Wallace left by the back door with Julia lying in the Parlour. What I’m saying is that the basic actions needn’t have taken much time at all. The 7.5-8.5 minutes ‘wriggle’ room allows time for a clean up if required and to do the staging of the robbery post mortem.

I’ve never really accepted the view of some that these events would have taken any great length of time. I’ll say again, timings cannot exonerate Wallace.

HS, this is a revised timeline from post #561. I see your scenario has evolved, perhaps taking something from Ratley? It is the best Wallace scenario to date, in my opinion, but we need to go over it from when the door was closed by Julia. Assume 6:38pm for now - you are free to change it later, of course. Remember you have to allow time for staging (or at least tell us where Julia might be), front room preparation, mackintosh on fire, disposal of weapon/gloves etc.

And I'm not holding you to different standard. You can have good fortune and bits that are unclear in your scenario. But timing is important. Timings do not exonerate Wallace, i.e. prove Wallace innocent, but to date they do make it look unlikely that he was the killer, at least for some.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS, this is a revised timeline from post #561. I see your scenario has evolved, perhaps taking something from Ratley? It is the best Wallace scenario to date, in my opinion, but we need to go over it from when the door was closed by Julia. Assume 6:38pm for now - you are free to change it later, of course. Remember you have to allow time for staging (or at least tell us where Julia might be), front room preparation, mackintosh on fire, disposal of weapon/gloves etc.

And I'm not holding you to different standard. You can have good fortune and bits that are unclear in your scenario. But timing is important. Timings do not exonerate Wallace, i.e. prove Wallace innocent, but to date they do make it look unlikely that he was the killer, at least for some.

Hi Antony,

I was just attempting to trim it down to close to the quickest possible time for Wallace to have done what he needed to do before exiting at the latest 6.50.

Perhaps earlier in the day Wallace pulled off the cupboard door (maybe it was already a bit rickety?) He says to Julia “the door of that cupboard has come off as I was opening it. Just leave it there and I’ll try and repair it tomorrow.”

Wallace empties the cash box and drops a few coins on the floor to make it look like a thief/killer dropped them but couldn’t be bothered to pick them up or that he missed them in haste. It’s no issue if Julia spots them because he just says “oh, I dropped a few coins earlier but I thought that I’d picked them all up.”

He’s already left some newspaper or a paper bag in the kitchen.

He goes upstairs to get ready to go out. While he’s up there he collects an old pair of gloves from his lab which he puts in his trouser pockets. To some extent he’s killing time as Alan Close is later than usual.

He hears Alan Close at the door - it’s between 6.30 and 6.35.

He goes downstairs and into the Parlour to ‘check himself’ in front of the mirror.

He hears Julia close the door - it’s between 6.35 and 6.38.

He calls out to Julia to bring in his mackintosh. As she’s about to help him on with her Wallace strikes her with the iron bar. Julia crumples to the floor across the fire grate causing the singeing/burning to the mackintosh and her dress. Wallace pulls her away from the fire and pats out the burning. - it’s 6.40.

Wallace puts the mackintosh on backwards and takes the gloves from his pockets and puts them on. He kneels over Julia and administers the rest of the blows. - it’s 6.41.

He takes off the mackintosh and pushes it underneath Julia’s body. He picks up the bar and goes into the kitchen where he puts it, along with the gloves, into the bag that he’d left there. - it’s now 6.43

This leaves Wallace 7 minutes to put on his coat, turn off the lights and exit. And of course if Alan Close left before 6.38 then thats extra time for Wallace.

[RodCrosby]

Don't need to indicate this. Wallace was not restricted time wise .

Haven't you forgotten (or remain blissfully unaware of) something?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. And the police did not follow up with anyone connected to Parry's alibi except Harold Denison (Brine's nephew). I can see why someone would be suspicious, but do we have grounds to reject Brine's statement? If we don't, Parry is eliminated as the killer based on the evidence available to us.

The police certainly had a lot to answer for Antony. Not checking the Monday night trams for one.

Brine’s statement gives us herself, her 13 yr old daughter, her nephew Harold and a Miss Plant(if I recall the name correctly?) Perhaps it might be suggested that 3 family members might have been persuaded to give a false alibi for some reason but Might we suggest that it would have been less likely for a visitor like Miss Plant (unless of course she had left before 8.30?) As you’ve said, we simply have no evidence of a false alibi.

My main problem is that Parry then said that he went for cigarettes and a paper and then to Hignett’s for his battery. Both of these alibi’s were easily checkable. Why would Parry give an alibi that could have been trashed in an instant if false?

[ColdCaseJury]

The police certainly had a lot to answer for Antony. Not checking the Monday night trams for one.

Brine’s statement gives us herself, her 13 yr old daughter, her nephew Harold and a Miss Plant(if I recall the name correctly?) Perhaps it might be suggested that 3 family members might have been persuaded to give a false alibi for some reason but Might we suggest that it would have been less likely for a visitor like Miss Plant (unless of course she had left before 8.30?) As you’ve said, we simply have no evidence of a false alibi.

My main problem is that Parry then said that he went for cigarettes and a paper and then to Hignett’s for his battery. Both of these alibi’s were easily checkable. Why would Parry give an alibi that could have been trashed in an instant if false?

Hi HS, I agree it is surprising, but remember Parry's alibi for the night of the call was trashed as soon as they spoke to the Lloyds. It seems the police trod lightly around Parry's alibi for the night of the murder, but that's all we have.

[moste]

Haven't you forgotten (or remain blissfully unaware of) something?

Maybe you could help, I’m a relative newbie to this thread

[Harry D]

Don't need to indicate this. Wallace was not restricted time wise .Don't you see, if he caught the earlier tram, or later tram, that's when his alibis kicked in .If he had arrived home 20 mins later , the Johnstones would have gone out for evening ,and Wallace would have been knocking on the Holmes's house, asking 'Have you heard or seen anything unusual? I cant seem to get into my house! He was the architect of his events. For e.g. He arrived at the newsagents just before closing at eight oclock , if they had already been closed it wouldn't have mattered, he already had sufficient alibi material. As long as he could see the last caller deal with his wife , regardless of exact time, he set himself x amount of time to do the necessaries, before heading out to time frame his alibis. My rough estimation is that it took him from her closing the front door for the last time ,about 7 or 8 minutes, to the time he was slipping into the back alley.
Quite brilliant really , have to take your hat off to the guy. He knew you see that the amount of time required and in fact the actual time of the incident ,would never be identifiable by a coroner (especially Macfall.) Even the eminent Pathologist Keith Simpson would have struggled. All Wallace had to say was 'It couldn't have been me, I was out! ' And he knew ,If things went reasonable well , they wouldn't be able to prove otherwise.
His plan was almost thwarted by the jury who clearly weren't following the plot, but exonerations were just around the corner in the form of the three wise men of the appeal court.

Although not as calculated as Wallace, it reminds me of the murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins. Her foster-father, Sion Jenkins was the prime suspect. At the time of her murder, Billie-Jo was painting the patio doors while Sion took his other daughter to the hardware store. He drove round the park twice before he got to the store and "realised" he'd forgot his wallet. When they returned, they found Billie-Jo had been bludgeoned to death. After calling emergency services, Jenkins went back and sat in the car. An unusual reaction, which the defence argued was brought upon by shock. The more cynical among us argued that Jenkins did this deliberately in case any blood evidence was found in the vehicle.

Anyway, like Wallace, Jenkins left the house and fannied about to give himself an alibi and allow time for an "intruder" to commit the crime. Jenkins was found guilty but acquitted at a retrial.

[moste]

Wow it is similar .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS, I agree it is surprising, but remember Parry's alibi for the night of the call was trashed as soon as they spoke to the Lloyds. It seems the police trod lightly around Parry's alibi for the night of the murder, but that's all we have.

Is it possible that Parry might simply have been mistaken with his Monday night alibi? We might say again ‘why would he give a false alibi that we’re so easily disproven?’ Would Lillian Lloyd and her mother have agreed to lie for Parry only to have told the truth and potentially ‘dropped him in it?’

It’s perhaps interesting that Lloyd was interviewed 3 days after Parry was. Might we not have expected Parry, after being interviewed, to have been around to see Lloyd to make sure that she’d gotten her story straight?

[ColdCaseJury]

Is it possible that Parry might simply have been mistaken with his Monday night alibi? We might say again ‘why would he give a false alibi that we’re so easily disproven?’ Would Lillian Lloyd and her mother have agreed to lie for Parry only to have told the truth and potentially ‘dropped him in it?’

It’s perhaps interesting that Lloyd was interviewed 3 days after Parry was. Might we not have expected Parry, after being interviewed, to have been around to see Lloyd to make sure that she’d gotten her story straight?

HS, it is possible that Parry was mistaken and he arrived in his car at the Lloyds a few minutes after the call was made from a phone box that was a few minutes drive away from the Lloyds. It is suspicious, to my mind, but that does not rule out an unfortunate coincidence. What is also interesting is that in the 1960s Parry would not give Jonathan Goodman his alibi for the night of the murder - he just said "he was with friends". If he had stated Mrs Brine, surely Goodman could have cleared Parry by speaking to her and anyone else connected with it.

On another topic, if you agree, I would like to go through your scenario and its timings very closely to potentially build a reconstruction which I could then post as an online article on my website (it could by bylined to you). The kick-off time would be:

6:35PM. According to his trial testimony, David Jones delivers the Echo to No. 29. He sees no lights on (there is a deep fanlight window above the front door) or hears no one inside. He also sees no one else in Wolverton Street.

Inference 1: Julia Wallace was in the kitchen with the hall door closed (given the justification @ 6:36 below).

Inference 2: Given testimony of teenagers (and broadly consistent with both Holmes and Johnston), Alan Close had not yet arrived to deliver milk.

Questions:
Under your scenario, Wallace would be in the kitchen, too? And has Wallace staged the burglary at this point?

6:36PM. Julia retrieves the Echo and takes it back to the kitchen to read.

Justification: The newspaper was found on the table by her seat - open at the centre pages, I believe.

Assumption 1: Julia turned to the centre pages or skim-read. Alternatively, Wallace staged this later. What do you think, HS?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
6:35PM. According to his trial testimony, David Jones delivers the Echo to No. 29. He sees no lights on (there is a deep fanlight window above the front door) or hears no one inside. He also sees no one else in Wolverton Street.

Inference 1: Julia Wallace was in the kitchen with the hall door closed (given the justification @ 6:36 below).

Inference 2: Given testimony of teenagers (and broadly consistent with both Holmes and Johnston), Alan Close had not yet arrived to deliver milk.

Questions:
Under your scenario, Wallace would be in the kitchen, too? And has Wallace staged the burglary at this point?

Yes, id have him in the kitchen. He could have removed the cash at any time but, as the coins were still on the floor, I’d suggest that it’s unlikely that he’d have emptied the box, say an hour ago, as it would have been more likely that Julia would have spotted them and picked them up. So maybe he emptied the cash box whilst Julia was dealing with Alan Close and Julia, whilst carrying the milk jug, didn’t notice them?

The pulling off of the cupboard door could have been done earlier and explained to Julia as a mishap that he’d repair the next day. But even if Wallace had removed it post mortem it might only have been a job that took 10 seconds as we have no way of knowing how difficult the task was.

.
6:36PM. Julia retrieves the Echo and takes it back to the kitchen to read.

Justification: The newspaper was found on the table by her seat - open at the centre pages, I believe.

Assumption 1: Julia turned to the centre pages or skim-read. Alternatively, Wallace staged this later. What do you think, HS?

I didn’t mention the newspaper originally but I can certainly see why you mention it (apart from the fact that it’s a fact of course )

I might have to offer a sidestep here

Perhaps Wallace had already washed and was almost ready to leave so that he didn’t need to go upstairs. Julia drops the paper onto the table and William skims through. He then goes into the Parlour when Alan Close arrives.

[ColdCaseJury]

HS, so we have:

6:35PM. According to his trial testimony, David Jones delivers the Echo to No. 29. He sees no lights on (there is a deep fanlight window above the front door) or hears no one inside. He also sees no one else in Wolverton Street.

Inference 1: Julia and William Wallace are in the kitchen with the hall door closed.

Inference 2: Given testimony of teenagers (and broadly consistent with both Holmes and Johnston), Alan Close had not yet arrived to deliver milk.

6:36PM. Julia retrieves the Echo and takes it back to the kitchen to read.

Justification: The newspaper was found on the table by her seat - open at the centre pages, I believe.

6.37PM. Alan Close knocks on the door of No. 29. He leaves a can of milk on the doorstep and goes to No. 31. Julia retrieves can and returns to fill the jug in her kitchen. Close returns to No. 29. James Wildman is at No. 27 delivering a paper. He looks across and sees Close with the door of No. 29 wide open.

6:38PM. Julia returns to front door with the empty can and hands it to Close, with whom she exchanges a few words. The front door closes.

We can slip in the staging of the burglary between these two times, but Julia returns to the kitchen quite soon after the knock and I wonder if that gives Wallace sufficient time (I think your best bet is to stage the robbery and open paper after the murder). In any case, what does Wallace retrieve from the cash box? He stated 30-40 silver coins, four notes, a postal order and a cheque were taken. And where does he place them? In my Wallace reconstruction, I had him remove notes which he burned (i.e. he lied about the coins). One idea for you: he takes the coins from the cash box and places approximately £1 in Julia's handbag, and pockets the rest with the notes. Another version would be he places the notes upstairs in his jar. Both of these two actions require more time than we have at this point in the timeline.