If you have any information on this case, please leave a comment below.
I thought you’d like to know that Ann Dennis (Merryweather) died in Feb. 1882, not 1892, in Brompton, Northallerton.
Thank you for the information.
Julia’s head was literally smashed in.
This I find concerning that unless we are talking about a random psychopathic killer just happening on poor Julia’s home it leads me to a more ‘ personal more grudging more sustained violence we see in marital or relationship murders.
The conundrum for myself is that I believe Mr Wallace to be innocent so how or where does that all take me?
Well cutting to the chase the following is what I believe:
a ) Julia set up someone to make the call to get her husband out of the house.
b ) Reason might be a secret lover or some personal transaction be that verbal or otherwise.
Perhaps she knew that her husband was seeking homosexual rent boys and wanted information ( perhaps from that person themselves ). NOTE :Not only was homosexuality illegal at that time but the curtain twitching had perhaps already begun and Julia wanted it to stop.
c ) The mackintosh was used to cover Julia so her killer did not have to witness what they were doing / had done.
So who was the murderer?
That is long deep buried and almost certainly we shall never know the name and the horrible twist is even poor Mr Wallace had no idea whatsoever.
It is likely that little to know money was taken ‘ even though Mr Wallace said he thought they had ‘ he probably was himself deeply confused of making sense of the non sensible.
That is my opinion based on much of what I have read that never seems to be touched upon.
I do not know with certainty that Mr Wallace was indeed homosexual but from what I have deemed likely of this case and from hearsay at that time I believe my comments are probably nearer the truth.
Thank you for reading
Thanks for your comment. So regarding the mackintosh, forensics I consulted do not believe it had been over her head during any of the assault. The reason for their conclusion is that the investigators at the time did not find any what he calls “true tears” in the fabric which would be expected in such a case. The investigation at the time of course was very shoddy (the lead forensic examiner did not find blood on an unspecified cushion in the parlour which was found and handed to the City Analyst for example).
The jacket was also moreso underneath the body. Apparently from what I have been told by professionals, the jacket was not likely used by any assailant for the purposes of shielding himself from blood. Not standing, nor kneeling (a sort of halo effect would be expected in the latter case apparently). More effective if it had been worn but this would still not work to entirely protect the assailant.
I am told the most plausible idea is that Julia had it on her in some way. Whether wearing it, holding it, or whichever, and when she went into the fireplace (causing those grid scorches on her skirt) the mackintosh also caught light.
I have tried unsuccessfully to hunt down an actual model of this fireplace to test how long the fire would need to have been on in order for the radiants to heat up to the degree that would be necessary to cause the burning at the scene.
In support of your idea, according to William if you believe that he’s an innocent man, Julia convinced him he should go to chess (as opposed to staying home when she’s sick) as well as convincing him to go out on the business trip when he discussed it with her.
For the modern forensic input I documented those here:
Thank you so very much for your reply on this most hideous and perplexing crime.
I have slightly raised eyebrows at the phone caller to the chess club saying his name as ‘R.M’ Qualtrough. If that was me I’d simply say Mr Qualtrough or perhaps Robert Qualtrough (or Richard or whatever). It just seems a bit odd and almost too thought out.
Also, and this simply a trivial aside, if I recall correctly, Wallace ended up playing against a Mr McCartney as his original opponent Chandler (apt!) hadn’t shown and I have often wondered if this is possibly Jim McCartney, father of Paul or if not one of his uncles. I understand it isn’t a highly unusual name but neither could you say it is a particularly popular surname either and off the top of my head Jim (Paul’s Dad) would have been in his late twenties/early thirties at the time. Happy to be ridiculed for this ponderance of course! Great site by the way.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Do you have any information regarding this case? Rumours? Eyewitness accounts? If so please post on the following page:
You are also encouraged to comment on any posts you wish.