Untold Motives

Summary

Buried Bones Podcast: “Untold Motives”

Hosts: Kate Winkler Dawson (journalist) & Paul Holes (retired investigator)
Release Date: January 7, 2026
Theme:
In this episode, Kate and Paul unravel the mysterious 1931 murder of Julia Wallace in Liverpool, England. The case became a classic of British true crime: was her husband William Wallace a criminal mastermind, or a man wrongfully accused amid circumstantial evidence and shoddy early forensics? The hosts apply modern investigative and forensic techniques to question the conclusions—and the failures—of the original inquiry, considering what motivates such seemingly senseless violence and how justice can slip away in the absence of hard proof.

---

Episode Overview

Kate introduces the murder of Julia Wallace, killed in her Liverpool home in 1931. William Wallace, her husband, becomes both the prime suspect and central figure in one of England’s most perplexing murder investigations. The story is notable for its lack of forensic certainty, a possible staged burglary, a confusing alibi involving a mysterious phone call, and the powerful weight of circumstantial evidence.

---

Case Background and Discovery

[06:42–17:10]

• Setting: Liverpool, January 20, 1931, at 29 Wolverton Street, a respectable middle-class home.
• Figures:
  • William Wallace: 52, insurance agent and chemistry lecturer;
  • Julia Wallace: 69, musically and artistically inclined, accomplished pianist and homemaker.
• Discovery: William returns home to find he cannot enter; neighbors John and Florence Johnston help him. They find Julia dead in the parlor, face-down in a pool of blood with devastating head wounds.
• Notable Details:
  • No disturbance to the room except significant blood.
  • Julia’s wedding ring and jewelry remain untouched.
  • William’s Macintosh (raincoat), soaked and partially burnt, is beneath Julia’s body, with charred fabric near the fireplace.
• Paul Holes’ Initial Assessment:
  • “Sounds like she’s received a devastating blow... blood, brain, and bone matter that is surrounding her body there.” – Paul Holes [10:01]
  • Immediate questions about blood flow, body warmth, the implications for time-of-death estimates considering cold January weather and active fireplace.

---

Crime Scene and Forensics

[17:10–34:22]

• Blood Pattern Analysis:
  • Blood spatter as high as 7 feet up the wall.
  • Most blood concentrated by William’s violin case and surrounding parlor corner.
  • Only scant blood elsewhere—except a pound note upstairs and a single drop on a toilet rim.
• Police and ME Observations:
  • No sign of struggle or forced entry; certain items oddly “ransacked,” but valuables like jewelry untouched.
  • Macintosh soaking in blood under Julia, some of it burnt.
  • Items like piano, violin, and other household objects largely undisturbed.
  • ME John Edward McFall’s autopsy:
    • Julia’s head suffered at least 3–4 massive blows, left side driven in and broken into pieces; “10 diagonal apparently incised wounds.”
    • Time of death estimated at 6:50 pm, based on rigor mortis, body temperature, and blood congealment—“but the fire near the body may distort these estimates,” cautions Paul.
• Contamination: Investigators and witnesses probably tracked blood through the house, muddying later evidence.
• Notable Quotes:
  • “The blood spatter is significant...she received multiple blows... when this, whatever the weapon is, is impacting that pooled blood source, that’s when you get the spatter.” – Paul Holes [15:49]
  • “There’s a reason why we freeze crime scenes... contamination can throw off interpretation of what happened.” – Paul Holes [33:23]

---

The Staged Burglary?

[34:22–39:50]

• Signs of a False Robbery:
  • Cabinet door broken, small change on the floor.
  • The real “prize,” William’s insurance collection box, appears looted (about £4 missing—nearly $500 today) but returned to its high shelf, untouched by blood.
  • Julia’s purse, hidden pound notes, and jewelry left untouched.
  • A wet nail brush and disordered bed in the spare bedroom, but no drawers opened nor jewelry disturbed.
• Paul’s Analysis:
  • Not a real burglary: “This seems inconsistent with an offender trying, desperately trying to find valuables... almost sounds more like the offender knows exactly where the money’s at.” [35:49]
  • No evidence of financial motivation for the attack; looks like staging by someone close.

---

William Wallace’s Alibi and the Phantom Caller

[39:50–52:57]

• The Chess Club Ruse:
  • On the murder’s eve, a man (using the client name “RM Qualtrow”) phones William at his chess club, summoning him to a distant meeting on the night of the murder.
  • William dutifully sets out to meet this man, reportedly gets lost for over an hour, seeking directions and riding trams—creating a public, witness-rich alibi.
• Assessment:
  • Paul is deeply skeptical:
    • “He’s trying to set up witnesses to support this alibi... this initial statement is sounding suspicious.” [43:38]
    • Questions if RM Qualtrow exists, and if this was clever alibi-manufacture or authentic coincidence.
• Witnesses:
  • 14-year-old milk boy Alan Close says he saw Julia alive between 6:30 and 6:45pm; potentially narrowing the window for the crime.
  • Debates over accuracy of witness timing.

---

The Suspect List and Theories

[52:57–56:48]

• William Proposes Other Suspects:
  • Names Richard Gordon Perry (age 22) and Joseph Caleb Marsden (age 30), former coworkers fired for financial impropriety, as possible killers.
  • Claims they knew his schedule and how the house was organized.
  • Kate and Paul, and the original police, find this implausible: neither had history of violence, and their alibis hold up.
• The “Qualtrow” Note:
  • Turns out to be a real insurance client, uninvolved; name was most likely used as a decoy.

---

The Missing Weapon(s)

[56:48–60:48, 73:06–74:56]

• Unfound Implements:
  • Housekeeper says a fireplace poker and iron bar are missing.
  • Decades later, tenants find an iron bar stashed behind the stove—possibly the murder weapon, but too late for forensic certainty.
• Paul’s Theory:
  • Likely a sequence of blows with a lightweight weapon (possibly the missing poker), “finished off” with a heavier bar.

---

Timeline and Alibi Analysis

[60:48–67:44]

• Police Time the Route:
  • With witness sighting times and tram journeys, per police math, William had only five minutes to kill Julia and clean up before heading out.
  • Paul strongly disagrees with the rigidity:
    • “I’m not overly concerned about that space of time at all... five or ten minutes, he could commit this homicide... I just don’t see where you’re going to get things down to the minute.” [61:41, 63:45]
  • Blood evidence on the jacket might have shielded him from getting blood on his clothes, allowing a quick change.
• Physical Ability?:
  • William’s defense argued his kidney disease made him physically incapable—Paul scoffs at the idea.
    • “He’s a 52 year old man. He can most certainly swing a fireplace poker or this iron bar.” [65:21]
• No Motive?:
  • No major insurance or evidence of financial gain, though even a minor argument could have triggered a frenzied attack.

---

Trial, Verdict, and Aftermath

[67:44–76:57]

• Trial Outcome:
  • William found guilty and sentenced to hang, despite scant forensic evidence, the absence of the murder weapon, and only circumstantial support.
• Appeal:
  • The conviction is overturned. The Court of Criminal Appeal comments:
    • “The evidence cannot support a guilty verdict... only the third time in English legal history they completely overturned a death sentence and guilty verdict.” [68:35]
• Public Backlash:
  • William endures relentless press vilification, is accused of perversion and sadism, faces social ostracism, and is driven from Liverpool.
• William’s Own Article:
  • In 1932 he publishes “I Know the Murderer” in the magazine John Bull, offering a suspiciously detailed reconstruction but naming no one.
    • “He can claim he’s reconstructing how this crime occurred... but I also believe he’s... accounting for a lot of evidence and how it was found and the reason for it. I bet there’s a lot of truth. But he’s just saying somebody else did it. Yeah, he knows the murderer. It’s because he’s the murderer.” – Paul Holes [70:56, 71:23]

---

Forensic and Investigative Reflections

[73:07–76:57]

• Coat/Shield Debate:
  • At trial, prosecution argued William wore only the Macintosh to avoid blood spatter; Joe Nickell (and Paul) suggest he may have just used it to cover her, or left it nearby after the attack.
    • “He probably has never killed anybody else in this manner. So he doesn’t really know exactly what’s going to happen... The Macintosh may simply have been... to cover Julie up... It’s very possible that he wasn’t wearing anything and got very little blood on himself.” – Paul Holes [73:33]
• On Motive and Planning:
  • Paul: The elaborate alibi construction suggests planning; or, possibly, a rage killing with opportunistic attempts to cover tracks.
    • “This case shows the struggles that investigators had back then... they just couldn’t prove it.” – Kate [76:12]

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “This is not a ransacked crime scene at all... This is not a financially motivated crime, even though it appears that there was an attempt to make it look that way.” – Paul Holes [37:59]
• “As I’m hearing about the case, I think I’m stronger than ever thinking that William killed Julia. And this isn’t a sexually motivated crime... Bludgeoning, often as a result of a, kind of like an angry... offender.” – Paul Holes [65:41]
• “They found a block of time in which they can’t account for. And so it’s possible that... the timeline still fits with William being able to commit this crime.” – Paul Holes [63:11]
• “If I were a juror sitting on and this is all that they’re presenting, I’d go, well, yeah, I think there’s enough reason to suspect he’s responsible, but I can’t vote guilty.” – Paul Holes [67:44]
• “William could never be retried for murder... but I think they went after the right guy.” – Paul Holes [72:50]
• “He is buried next to her, which is unfortunate.” – Kate Winkler Dawson [75:06]

---

Key Segment Timestamps

• Scene-setting & Discovery: [06:42–10:01]
• Forensic Analysis: [13:14–34:22]
• Burglary Staging: [34:22–39:50]
• Wallace’s Alibi & Alibi Construction: [39:50–45:19]
• Debate Over Window of Time: [60:48–67:44]
• Trial Outcome & Aftermath: [67:44–76:57]
• William’s Article & Off-the-record Confession: [70:50–72:50]

---

Tone & Style

The episode is a blend of methodical forensic reasoning (thanks to Paul), vivid and compassionate narration (Kate), and unflinching skepticism. There’s a mutual focus on how much context—be it human frailty or period-appropriate investigative tools—can shape guilt, innocence, and public perception. Paul remains clear-eyed and cautious: he’s sure William did it, but wouldn’t convict on this evidence. Kate delivers historic empathy and modern insight, also leaning toward William’s guilt but acutely aware of the systemic flaws that let the guilty walk free—or condemn the innocent.

---

Final Thoughts

“Untold Motives” highlights the complexities of historic true crime, especially where motive, evidence, and human bias meet. It’s a sobering look at the limitations of early forensics and the dangers of prejudice when proof is thin. Yet, for all its old bones and shadows, the case still stirs the imagination—a testament to the enduring draw of unsolved mysteries and the humanity at their heart.

---

For further information and visual materials, the hosts recommend their Instagram (@buriedbonespod).

Transcript

[Tide Commercial Narrator]

This is exactly right.

[Katie Whelan]

If you're feeling exhausted, puffy, anxious, foggy, gaining weight, or just not like yourself, you're not imagining it. Women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s are experiencing massive hormonal shifts, and no one is explaining what's actually happening. I'm Katie Whelan, co founder of joy. I built JOY because I lived this. The fatigue, the mood swings, the weight changes, the confusion. Your symptoms are biological, not personal. And AI generated lab reports won't fix them. Every Joy lab includes a visit with a licensed clinician who specializes in women's hormones and connects every biomarker to how you feel. Energy metabolism, mood, sleep, skin weight, everything. Then we personalize real solutions. Hormone therapy, peptide therapy, supplements, and lifestyle protocols. Get [e-mail] today. This month, new customers get 50% off labs. And you can add our estrogen face cream for just $1 with clinician approval. Use promo code [e-mail] did you know.

[Tide Commercial Narrator]

Tide has been upgraded to provide an even better clean in cold water? Tide is specifically designed to fight any stain you throw at it. Even in cold butter. Yep. Chocolate ice cream.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Sure thing.

[Tide Commercial Narrator]

Barbecue sauce. Tide's got you covered. You don't need to use warm water. Additionally, Tide pods let you confidently fight tough stains with new coldzyme technology. Just remember, if it's gotta be clean, it's gotta be tied.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I'm Kate Winkler Dawson. I'm a journalist who's spent the last 25 years writing about true crime.

[Paul Holz]

And I'm Paul Holz, a retired cold case investigator who's worked some of America's most complicated cases and solved them.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Each week, I present Paul with one of history's most compelling true crimes.

[Paul Holz]

And I weigh in. Using modern forensic techniques to bring new insights to old mysteries.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Together, using our individual expertise, we're examining historical true crime cases through a 21st century lens.

[Paul Holz]

Some are solved and some are cold. Very cold.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

This is buried bones. Hey, Paul.

[Paul Holz]

Hey, Kate. How are you?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I'm fine. Happy post. Holidays.

[Paul Holz]

I know. You know, it's time just is flying. The older I get, it seems like these holidays come faster and faster.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

You had a milestone on this holiday, right?

[Paul Holz]

Kind of. You know, this. This is the first year for me in 33 years that I haven't had children in the house.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Oh, my gosh. They came home for the. For Thanksgiving and for the holidays. Right. For Christmas.

[Paul Holz]

Right. So I have two kids that are in college, two different colleges in the Midwest, and they both came home at the same time. So we were empty nesters leading up to the holiday season. But now, you know, they're going back to college and won't see them again. Well, chances are won't see them again until their spring break.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Oh, my gosh. So I'm asking for a friend here. Do they have certain expectations when they come home from college? I've got two kids getting ready to go in a couple years. Like, what do they think? Do they think things are frozen in time? Is that what happens?

[Paul Holz]

Yeah, you know, and I, we just treat. When they come back, they get back into their routine, you know, and they get. Well, they have to do their own laundry, but they just do their normal routine. Sometimes they have some assignments, you know, and my daughter is a trumpet player, so she has to continue to practice even though she's home. But we just want them to be comfortable. And, you know, I. I considered moving this where. Where I'm podcasting from up into their space where they have their computers. But then I thought about it, and then that would be such a disruption for them when they do get the chance to come home. So I think I'm going to be in this space for. For our podcast into the foreseeable future.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, this is a good space, so I approve of it and I think that's fine. I remember wanting to come. The shrine that it was. My room stays exactly the same. And I think my mom and my dad both kept it that way. But I wanted everything to be the same. I missed the dog, I missed my car. I missed. Because I was going to school in Boston, I just wanted everything sort of frozen. And I was unaccepting that things change when you're gone. So I wonder if your kids feel like that too.

[Paul Holz]

I think so. Like, for me, I was a military brat, so I was used to moving around. In fact, I needed to have different spaces. If I was in one location. That didn't change for a period of time, I'd start going nuts. So I would drive my first wife nuts because I would constantly rearrange the house.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Did you break that? Somehow, therapy. What had changed?

[Paul Holz]

Not so much from therapy. It was just as I got older, that urge started to fade because now I'm living in one location for my career. Well, not one location, but generally I was staying in places longer. And then that just that urge to be in a new place started to go away.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah, well, when one of my girls goes to camp, she laments missing these dogs, Both of our dogs, and it's not usually us, it's mostly the dogs And I was like that too. I'm all said.

[Paul Holz]

Yeah.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

You always said I miss the dog so much. So I understand that. Because the dog didn't ask me to do stuff like my laundry, things like that.

[Paul Holz]

Sure, sure.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, I'm glad you guys had good holidays. And the empty nester thing, I know takes a little bit of to get used to. It's nice when they came home and it sounds like everything went really well.

[Paul Holz]

It did. Thanks for asking.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, we're gonna get to a story located in a place that feels like home for me, my second home, which is England. And this is a really interesting story. Now, I've never been to Liverpool and I'm not even gonna ask. I'm pretty sure you've never been to Liverpool already.

[Paul Holz]

I have not. Yeah, I think I met some people from Liverpool. They have very different accents than the people in London. Right.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Equally as lovely. Yes, equally as lovely. And I am not a soccer football fan, but I know what a big deal that is. It has nothing to do with our story, but we've never done something in Liverpool, so this will be interesting.

[Paul Holz]

All right, looking forward to it.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, let's set the scene. Okay, we are in Liverpool, like I mentioned, and it is January 20, 1931, which means we are smack in the middle of the almost 12 years between World War I ending and then World War II beginning.

[Paul Holz]

Okay.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

We are at a street called 29 Wolverton Street. It's a very nice home. So we are focusing on William and Julia Wallace. And I'll tell you more about them in a little bit. I wanted to show you an interesting photo. So I sent you your photos. I bet you haven't downloaded them yet, but maybe you have.

[Paul Holz]

I have not, but let me. Okay, so I've got it up, and I'm seeing, I'm assuming, William and Julia side by side in this first frame.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Correct. I wanted you to see the photo of William and Julia because I think it illustrates sort of their level, their social stature in life. So William, at the time when all of this starts to happen, is 52 and Julia is 69. Now, I don't think that is the case in these photos necessarily. Maybe William is 52, but Julia, I don't think in this photo is 69. There's quite a big age difference here.

[Paul Holz]

No, for sure. You know, at least in the photo, William looks to me to be approaching mid-70s. I'm shocked that he's 52 in that photo. Now, the photo of Julia, she looks younger there than 69, for sure.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, so William comes home. He's a collections agent for Prudential Assurance, so he makes pretty good money. He just got home from a day of rounds collecting and he's having trouble getting inside. The front door seems to be locked. And Julia, who is inside, is not responding to his knock. Okay, so he sees that the back gate is closed, but it's unbolted, which is unusual. And he tries the back door. He can't get in there either. It's also locked. So there are two neighbors, John and Florence Johnston. They hear him knocking and I think his knocking is getting a little more frantic, probably because he's annoyed he can't get inside. And they come and help. So they try the front door and the back door again. They finally get through the back door. This is when they make the discovery. You know, a lot of times I try to lead this up to a big mystery of who the victim might be. The victim in this case is Julia. I mentioned she's 69. And the Johnsons see fairly quickly, I would say that Julia is lying on the floor and she's dead. And she is face down on her right side. And There is a 9 inch diameter pool of her own blood, we will assume under her face. There's also brain matter and there's bone on the left hand side of her face above and in the front of her ear is a 2 inch wound that penetrates 3 inches deep. You can tell that we're going to have a medical examiner coming up here pretty soon because we have some pretty precise things. Florence is very upset, as is understandable, and she rushes to Julia. Her body is still warm. Florence says, and as an investigator on the scene, what would this immediately tell you? So far, fairly straightforward. They get in, they see her dead on the floor. She's got gashes on her face and there's blood.

[Paul Holz]

Well, it sounds like she's, you know, she's received a devastating blow to the left side of her, her head that's penetrated into her skull. This is why you have the blood, brain and bone matter that is surrounding her, her body there. One of the observations that I would be making would be the blood flows out of that wound. Do they change direction, indicating that after she starts bleeding, did she reposition like she starts bleeding while she's upright and then she goes and is laying face down. I'd also be paying attention to the blood pool. You know, they're saying that her body is still warm. That tends to suggest that this is a relatively recent death. But the blood also is Indicative of time. Because as the blood pools outside the body, eventually it starts to separate, it starts to coagulate. And so if she's been laying there for a period of time, then I might expect to see the separation within the blood pool to indicate, oh, there's a little bit more time that's passed than just what the temperature of the body is indicating. But the environment is also something that is significant. It's 8:40 at night in January in Liverpool. I imagine it's pretty cold outside. You know, is it warm inside the house or is it pretty cool inside the house? That would have an impact on the assessment of how long prior to the discovery of the body she was killed.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I wanted to do a little bit of quick research for you to kind of get an indication of those two things. So the average temperature in January in Liverpool, I would say it looks like it's between 36 and 39 degrees Fahrenheit.

[Paul Holz]

Okay.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

And I also wanted to double check. It would indeed be very dark at 8:40pm in January in Liverpool.

[Paul Holz]

Yeah.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

So those are two things. Usually you want to know more about the autopsy, and we're going to have a medical examiner show up here pretty soon. I have photos also of the front and back door. I do not have photos of Julia's body laying there, but I have a pretty big description from the medical examiner. So you want me to continue on with what the neighbors initially see until the police come in or. Where do you want to head, do you think?

[Paul Holz]

Yeah, let's get the observation, the initial observations and then, you know, flow into the autopsy.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay. I'm gonna tell you about Julia and William in just a little bit about their interests, which will probably explain some of the things in their room. This is their parlor, so it could be the equivalent of their living room. There is a piano that Julia plays. It's undisturbed. It doesn't seem like there's anything that's been displaced. The blinds are drawn and the mantelpiece gaslight is lit. So we have a lot of gaslights happening around the house. Julia still has her wedding ring on and a large brooch. And there is a rain jacket they'll call a Macintosh. That is Williams. And it's crumpled underneath Julia's body. It's blood drenched, according to everybody there, including the medical examiner, who will come in a little bit. It's also burned. And there's a fireplace that's going. And there are charred fragments of it near the fireplace, but it's crumpled under her body.

[Paul Holz]

And this is William's jacket underneath her body. But it appears that part of the jacket got close enough to the fire to where it either caught fire itself or was charred because of the heat. Now, the fire is significant because even though it's cold outside, it's going to be warm, warmer where her body is located at. So that could potentially speed up aspects of time change with, you know, her death and what we would be looking for, the jacket being blood drenched, is it underneath, you know, her head, or does she have other bleeding injuries? Or was the blood on this jacket prior to her falling down on it or coming to rest on it? You know, I would start looking at, did somebody use this jacket to try to stem the flow of blood from her head and then gave up and just left it in place.

[Katie Whelan]

If you're feeling exhausted, puffy, anxious, foggy, gaining weight, or just not like yourself, you're not imagining it. Women in their 30s, 40s and 50s are experiencing massive hormonal shifts and no one is explaining what's actually happening. I'm Katie Whelan, co founder of joy. I built Joy because I lived this. The fatigue, the mood swings, the weight changes, the confusion. Your symptoms are biological, not personal, and AI generated lab reports won't fix them. Every Joy lab includes a visit with a licensed clinician who specializes in women's hormones and connects every biomarker to how you feel, energy metabolism, mood, sleep, skin weight, everything. Then we personalize real solutions. Hormone therapy, peptide therapy, supplements, and lifestyle protocols. Get [e-mail] today. This month, new customers get 50% off labs and you can add our estrogen face cream for just $1 with clinician approval. Use promo code [e-mail] well, I'll give.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

You some more information, especially when the ME shows up, and then maybe that'll explain some things. This is what the initial observations from the neighbors and from Williams say. They say there is blood splattered at an average, they said about 4ft and in some places, 7ft up the wall. One other little note. Julia plays the piano. William plays the violin. His case is on an easy chair to the left of the fireplace. And there's kind of just blood everywhere, but nothing is displaced, which I think they think is gonna be key coming up here, too.

[Paul Holz]

Well, the blood spatter is significant. So if she just received a single blow, devastating blow, that crushed in her skull, there wouldn't be this blood spatter. So what that tells me is that she received multiple blows and some of those blows were to what we Call a pooled blood source, probably her head. And then when this, whatever the weapon is, is impacting that pooled blood source, that's when you get the spatter. Now when you say it's ranging from like 4ft up to 7ft up, now I would be assessing those patterns. Is she receiving some blows while she's upright? Do, does a spatter indicate that the blows were occurring while she's actually down on the floor? But some of, I imagine some of what this spatter is, is potentially cast off. So if you have a weapon that is now getting bloodied and on the upswing, some of that blood gets flung off and it can go a significant distance vertically, even up on the ceiling or behind the offender. So that's kind of how I'm envisioning what you just told me about the observations of the blood patterns in room. It sounds like she's receiving multiple blows, unless it's, you know, it's a gunshot. And now the spatter would look completely different.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

And the Johnsons don't know yet. They certainly call the police quickly. Okay, now we're at a fork in the road regarding information. We can talk about the Wallaces, their relationship, you know, what they were like, or we can get the police there sooner and the medical examiner and get to the autopsy. So what do you want to do? Do you want to do victimology first or do you want to get to the medical stuff?

[Paul Holz]

No, I think at this point I want medical stuff so I can kind of assess, you know, what the offender did to the victim and then start hearing about the victimology and go from there.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, here's another fork. When the police come, they start talking about what's been stolen. Some weird things are going on in the house. Or do we go straight to the ME and he shows up and says these are the. Or the wounds still going right to me?

[Paul Holz]

Yes, please.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, there's a cop. We don't care about him right now, but he'll be important. His name's Fred Williams and he's a constable. So this is not a police detective. Right now he's the initial person who shows up and then they call the medical examiner. And the medical examiner is a professor named John Edward McFall. And he gets there at 9:50, which is about an hour after she's discovered by William and by the Johnstons. He's also the one who's going to oversee the postmortem examination. And also all the blood patterns that are on the walls and the floor and everywhere else. Okay, this is what McFall's initial impression is, he said that, you know, of course, there's no indication of a struggle. And there's an author named Joe Nickel who does a really great job summarizing, you know, all of this, including McFall's initial description of the forensics. So I'm gonna. This is from Joe's article, but also, you know, this is stuff from McFaul directly. Almost all of the blood was concentrated into the corner of the room where William's violin case sits. The violin is on an easy chair to the left of the fireplace. So close to the fireplace, close to where her body was. The forensic says almost all the spatter was concentrated in the corner of the room where William's violin case sits on the armchair, with very scant amounts anywhere else in the entire house, except small amounts of spray on some papers on a chair. And there's a key thing on the toilet rim upstairs, in the water closet upstairs. And there is blood on a pound treasury note in the middle bedroom, so not in the parlor. The rest is entirely concentrated into the corner of the room with the violin case. And this is one more interesting thing that McFaul says. He says that the blood spatter in the parlor creates a soda water bottle effect. So he said round spots and partly diagonal spots concentrated in front of the parlor chair. He wonders that if she was sitting there right before she was attacked and her head was turned to the right as if she were talking to somebody. So these are the initial just, you know, observations he made, and then he has some initial observations of her body while she's lying there.

[Paul Holz]

Well, the description of the blood spatter, where you have a concentration of circular droplets as well as some diagonal droplets. Where those circular droplets are located will be a result of the blood droplets striking the wall straight on. So that's an indication of the height of. I'm assuming the only bleeding injury is her head, the height her head was at at the time it received a blow to a pooled blood source. When you have droplets now that are spraying out, they start striking that wall surface at angles, and so they form these diagonal stains. So we can use that as part of a blood pattern interpretation to, in essence, determine roughly in space where her head was at the time she received that blow. The critical information for me is, okay, what height does McFall seeing this? Is this down near the floor, or is this up higher, as if she received a blow while she was sitting in the chair? His conclusion about her head being turned a certain direction, as if she were talking to somebody. The problem with, you know, human bodies is it's very dynamic. You know, so she may have been sitting in the chair and recognized offender coming up, up on her. And now she's moving as the offender is attacking. And so that always, that dynamic aspect of the offender victim interaction always impacts our ability to truly reconstruct what's going on. So I would have to hear more about his observations and, and the actual medical findings to see if I agree with that.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay.

[Paul Holz]

But it's, it really does sound, with all the blood and you have the blood spatter concentrated in, in the corner near this chair, then that, that appears to where at least, you know, the fatal ASP attack occurred. The other items that you talked about having some blood on them are transportable items. And so the question is, are these items that could have been placed there by the offender after Julia was killed, or is there any indication that Julia had an earlier bleeding injury somewhere else in the house and then ultimately ended up where she was killed?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

And what you're talking about there is, you know, the violin case, which we talked about, there are papers and there's that £1 treasury note that, you know, was found in the middle bedroom. Right. And then we, we have one other blood that I think is a little.

[Paul Holz]

Confusing and that's in the bathroom. Right. Wasn't that.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah, and I have photos of that too.

[Paul Holz]

Oh, okay, good. Because you know that that could be the offender cleaning up after he's killed Julia.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Let me get to what they say with the, at least the autopsy part of this. So he says that there are 10 diagonal apparently incised wounds on the left side of the back of her head. The left frontal bone has pierced the front of her brain. The whole of the left side of the back of the skull was driven in and broken into pieces. These wounds were the result of being struck three or four times with terrific force by a hard, large headed instrument. First of all, I mean, can you tell that from those wounds?

[Paul Holz]

Oftentimes, yes. You know, so this is when you start assessing the damage to the skull. Let's say somebody is being hit in the head with just a typical hammer, you know, 1 inch diameter, round diameter. You can literally see the skull get circular punches punched out of it, or if the hammer hits it off, you know, kind of on this, on the edge, you know, now you get like a half moon effect when you start dealing with something more massive, let's say a sledgehammer. I mean, now you have that crushing type of injury. So you can, a pathologist can Assess, you know, certain characteristics of the weapon, both its size as well as features of the weapon sometimes.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, well, let's continue on. He talks about time of death and he said that her hands are cold, but her body is still warm. And he says based on the presence of rigor mortis in her neck and her upper part of the left arm, as well as the congealment of the blood that had pooled around her head, he thinks the time of death was about 6:50. So this would have been two hours before William tried to get into the house. I don't know if we've had details about Rigor Morris, that detailed. Like, this is where she's stiff and this is why I think it. What do you think about his assessment?

[Paul Holz]

Well, it's a rough assessment, you know, but, you know, she's been dead long enough to where now you're starting to see the rigor form. She's been dead long enough to where that blood, as I talked about before, is starting to congeal. That's what he is observing. The complexity is that she's near the fire, you know, so things are going to speed up. So I would use that time of death as just a rough estimate. You know, I could not. Like, let's say if I find a suspect and he's got an alibi up until he doesn't, at 650, I would be, oh, I can't use that alibi to eliminate them. She could have been killed, you know, at five o' clock and you'd still see these same types of characteristics.

[Katie Whelan]

If you're feeling exhausted, puffy, anxious, foggy, gaining weight, or just not like yourself, you're not imagining it. Women in their 30s, 40s and 50s are experiencing massive hormonal shifts and no one is explaining what's actually happening. I'm Katie Whelan, co founder of Joy. I built Joy because I lived this. The fatigue, the mood swings, the weight changes, the confusion. Your symptoms are biological, not personal. And AI generated lab reports won't fix them. Every Joy lab includes a visit with a licensed clinician who specializes in women's hormones and connects every biomarker to how you feel. Energy, metabolism, mood, sleep, skin weight, everything. Then we personalize real solutions. Hormone therapy, peptide therapy, supplements, and lifestyle protocols. Get [e-mail] today. This month, new customers get 50% off labs and you can add our estrogen face cream for just $1 with clinician approval. Use promo code [e-mail] okay, I'm going.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

To Jump down big time. Something I didn't anticipate doing because we have a forensics person who comes in the day after this happens, and he is the city analyst. His name is William Henry Roberts. And I feel like I should go ahead and bring this in now so maybe we can close out, you know, the forensics in the blood and the autopsy stuff before we move into more stuff that's gonna be speculative. So William Henry Roberts comes in and he looks at 15 articles from the crime scene. The raincoat Macintosh on which Julia's body has been found, is extensively and heavily stained with human blood on the right side, both inside and outside, and on the upper inner side of the right sleeve. The outside of the left cuff and a large area near the left pocket were similarly stained. The bottom right side of the coat is also burned off. Blood is found splashed and smeared on two photographs. So now we're outside of the. We're finally done with the jacket. So blood is splashed and smeared on two photographs. And the wide end of the violin case, the COVID of Sheet music, a cushion, the corner of a hearth rug, and the front of Julia's skirt are all splattered in blood. In the primary bedroom, blood is smeared on one of the one pound notes in a Glasher. It appears that a blood stained thumb has been run across this note. There is no blood, though, on a cash box that appears to have been looted. And I have to go back up for that. And on any of William's clothing, even though they used a sensitive benzedine test, because William is going to be on the list of suspects, obviously, or there's a sledgehammer that they found in William's chemistry lab. He's a chemist at a local university. So they've tested what they think are the murder weapons. They've tested a suspect's clothing, and that's where the rest of the blood is found. Once you get a forensic sky in.

[Paul Holz]

There, the amount of blood on the jacket, you know what I would be looking at? Is that how this blood staining is occurring on the jacket, Is that entirely consistent with her just laying on top of the jacket after she's been killed? Or is there blood staining that indicates that potentially her body has been moved, or there was other interactions between the offender and the victim that caused additional staining on this jacket? Why is the jacket even there in the first place? And then, of course, why is it charred? Now, some of these other items that have blood on it, again, it comes down to, well, how are they positioned in the Crime scene with where the blood spatter is, where the victim ultimately is found. Is there any indication that the victim, let's say she's upright and she's been, she's receiving blows as she's trying to fight off the offender. And now you have some blood staining occurring on some of these other objects. So, so this analyst, you know, his, his observations of the blood patterns, you know, it's not giving me enough information of the evidence in situ at the crime scene for me to kind of get a better feel of what's going on with Julia. You know, the fact that her ring is still on, she's got a brooch on, there's light ransacking, you know, does this sound like it's a financially motivated crime right now? It really doesn't. And the prior observations of what he called 10 incisive, you know, wounds to the, you know, left backside of her head. That's the wrong use of that term. Incisive wounds are created by a sharp edged weapon. Now if it's something like a hatchet or an axe, sure. But chances are those are what would could technically today be called lacerations where the skin has been split because a result of blows. And everything else about how he's describing her injuries indicate that I believe all her injuries to her head are a result of multiple blows.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, let's get to one other piece of blood evidence, which is the toilet rim upstairs. So I have a wide shot, a close up shot of this blood, which they say has been congealed. There is also a map of the whole house, which is sprawling, I would say. So I guess once we start talking about the entry and who has access, you can look at the map or you want to just get done with blood?

[Paul Holz]

Yeah, let's just get done with the blood. All right, so I'm looking at the toilet and there is a bright red circular drop that is on the right front top surface of the rim of the toilet. The seat is up, you know, the toilet itself, the water is, you know, you could see where there's like staining as a result of algae and stuff. And then there's a close up shot which is again just showing what appears to be a mostly circular drop of blood. And what this tells me is that this is just a single drop of blood that struck the toilet straight on. There's an object that has blood on it, could be a person. And a single drop of blood just dropped down onto that toilet. And not from a great height because I'm not seeing scalloping around the edge of this, it looks like almost a perfect circular drop. So that's all it is. It's just one droplet of dripped blood. I mean, there's just no way that you would use the term congealed with. With a droplet like this, Basically, this blood.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, so later on, when we do end up having a trial, the professor will get on the stand and he'll say that aside from the fact that he's not sure if his assessment of the rigor mortis was 100% accurate on the time frame, he said that he and the detectives walked freely from the parlor to other rooms at the house. So I think the insinuation here is that it's possible that they transported some of this blood to different areas. They can't be specific about that. But he talks a little bit about the toilet rim, and he gives some details about how much blood that is. I remember reading somewhere, maybe it's menstrual blood. Julia was 69. I don't think so. But, you know, who knows? There's just sort of looking at all of these different options. But you're right. I mean, this isn't. You're saying that this is not a sign of a big cleanup or something in this bathroom necessarily?

[Paul Holz]

No. You know, this is. In fact, you really can't even draw any type of conclusion outside. It's a single droplet of dripped blood. And is this. You know, whose is it? You know, today we would be able to determine that. And is it coming from Julia or is it coming from somebody else? You know, something that you just brought up is a significant thing. There's a reason why we freeze crime scenes and prevent people from wandering around. It's because there can be contamination that can throw off an interpretation of what happened. So given what you just told me, is it possible that. That one of the responders dealing with the crime scene had to go use the bathroom and is now leaving that little bit of dripped blood off of. I doubt if they were using gloves and off of the hand or whatever, you know, but it's also possible that you have the offender, you know, going into this bathroom to clean up. And whether it comes off of his hand or a weapon, you know, you have a drop of blood from Julia that gets transferred into the bathroom.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, let's talk about the strange circumstances that the police constable notes when he gets there, which is around 9, 10. So he got there 25 minutes, it sounds like, after, you know, this initial discovery. So here are the things where we start putting Together. A motive, I think. And then I'll tell you about Julia and William in a little bit. So, as I said before, no signs of forced entry, no other indicators of burglary, but some kind of weird stuff. There's a cabinet door in the living room that's broken, and a half crown and two shilling pieces are on the floor. Okay. Which is not very much money. William keeps his insurance collection box. So, you know, I told you before that was his job, is he would go and collect insurance money. He keeps his insurance collection box stowed on the top shelf of a seven foot tall bookcase. He says that it's been looted for four pounds, which is almost $500 today. But there are no bloodied marks on it. And Constable Williams is thinking to himself, why would a robber kill a woman, try to loot the house, and then put the cash box back on the top shelf? And so if you look at that photo that you had pointed out earlier, you'll see it doesn't sound. They're saying that this is not in disarray. This looks like a pretty messy room, but, you know, this is the state of the room where the cash box was kept.

[Paul Holz]

Sure. The idea that this, this cash box, which is very nondescript, that the. The offender recognized it was something that would have some. Some money in it, and so takes it down, takes a little bit of money out and then puts it back. And then you have a cabinet door that, you know, has been broken and a few coins scattered on the floor. This is, you know, like in my experience processing burglary scenes, this seems inconsistent with an offender trying, you know, desperately trying to find, you know, valuables. It almost sounds more like the offender knows exactly where the money's at. The fact that you don't have a lot taken suggests to me that possibly this is a staged crime scene, where now somebody like William is trying to make it look like an intruder came in and was a financially motivated crime, but he doesn't want to lose all that money. So I'm starting to get suspicious of William.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, well, let's continue on. Keep your suspicions to yourself, Paul. Holes? Not really. You can say it if you want. Okay. They go upstairs and the gas lights are on, which would be normal. They find Julia's purse. The purse has not been taken or looted. There are pound notes that are stuffed in a glass jar in the bedroom. They're still there. I mentioned there's like a blood, a little bit of blood, I think, on the outside of the jar of that. But that's about it. So this is what I think was interesting. A good observation from the police constable. He said there is a clean but recently used nail brush in the bathroom. So it's one of those brushes with the bristles where you would clean your nails off and you know, it's wet. He said that in this front spare bedroom, the bed sheets are totally disordered. There are pillows and clothes that are strewn all over the floor, but nobody opened any drawers. And Julia's jewelry is tucked away in a cabinet. So this is even more suspicious. And you can look at the layout if you want to at some point.

[Paul Holz]

This is not a ransacked crime scene at all. And with such focus, you know, the damage to the cabinet door, the cash box being put back and nothing else is being taken or other drawers being opened entirely inconsistent with an offender who's going to go throughout a house. And, you know, experienced burglars can size up really quickly. Okay, where most likely am I going to find things that are worth taking? You know, and oftentimes they'll go into the master bedroom. They go into the master bathroom today, you know, the master closet. It. This is where you'll find the jewelry, you know, so this is not a financially motivated crime, even though it appears that there was a. An attempt to make it look that way. And the homicide occurred in that, you know, where Julia's body was found. And it's just. Did. Did violence start somewhere else? And then it did. During her attempt, did she run to that room? You know, that front room looks like it's right next to the front door of the house, though. You have to walk down. You have to go through the vestibule, walk down the hallway, and then go to the right to get into that front room. I would consider the possibility that somebody knocked on the front door and, you know, Julia opened it, and now he rushes in and kills Julia. But then why. This is where I think, you know, learning the victimology becomes important because this appears that the offender's intent was to kill Julia and wasn't coming in to burglarize, you know, to. To basically take items of value. It's not a financially motivated crime, in my opinion.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, let's keep moving through this. Okay, Now, I think we might be through all of the forensics and the things that are missing and not missing, and let's go ahead and get to the couple. Since you're suspicious of William already, we'll see if you are rightly so. It seems like they're a happy couple. Of course, we Hear that all the time. They were happy and they kept to themselves. They were married 16 years. William, I showed you the photo. He's lanky, he's eccentric, he's worldly, you know, in a lot of different disciplines. In 1907 he developed a severe kidney issue, which impeded his ability to move around quickly and compelled him to come back to London after they had been doing a lot of traveling. Then he became a lecturer in chemistry at the Liverpool Technical Institute. And then he, you know, was doing what he currently does also, which is being a collector for an insurance company. Julia was an accomplished pianist. She sounds so interesting. She was a painter, needlepoint craftswoman. She was a, you know, just sort of like an interesting, well rounded person overall. Once we get into the circumstances of the police are starting to suspect William and what he says happens. So that night William goes down to the station with the constable at the station. He describes some of the things that have been happening, he says, over the past two days. So you tell me what makes sense here. This is sort of convoluted. The day before the murder, which is 1-9-19th, he was in a chess tournament because he's into chess and he plays the violin and he has all these different interests. When he gets to the chess tournament, which is about 7:45 or so, there's a guy there named Captain Samuel Betty. And he says somebody gave you a message. Somebody named RM Qualtrue had called for William at this cafe where this tournament was being held about 7, 15, 30 minutes earlier. According to the guy, the captain, who gave him this note, this guy, RM Qualtro, wanted to schedule a meeting regarding a new insurance policy for his daughter. And this would not have been unusual at the time. He requested William meet him at a particular spot the next day at 7:30pm so this would have been when Julia was murdered, about an hour and 20 minutes before she was discovered by William and the neighbors. Okay, so he says, meet me at this place. This is what the note says. So the day that the murder happens, William collected his insurance payments. He has dinner with Julia about 6 o', clock, and then he heads out to go meet this guy. And according to him, he left the house about 6:45. He was wearing a raincoat and walked a third of a mile to a church. He promptly gets lost. But there are tram operators at two different locations that help him. So he's actually out there, you know, trying to catch these different trams to get to this location. He gets lost, he asks a lot of people for directions and he's looking, you know, street signs, he's at local post offices, he's kind of all over the place. And he wonders if this guy had written down the wrong address for the appointment. He gives up at about 8:10, he gets on a tram and he heads home. So police take down the statement and they examine his clothing and his boots and his hands for blood. They can't find anything. He is still their prime suspect. And over the next nine days he gives them three more statements. So what do you think about this alibi? A mystery man says meet me at this mystery place far away on the night that his wife is murdered.

[Paul Holz]

So just a little bit of a statement analysis. He has dinner with the victim at 6 o', clock, claims that he leaves at 6:45 in the evening and now he's going out to try to find this, this man and is lost and is now interacting with a bunch of people. Sounds like he's trying to set up witnesses to support this alibi. You know, you have to dig into this from an investigative standpoint is can you track down who this RM Couture is and verify that there was actually an arrangement? Also this note, you know, it's the, the captain, Betty, who's the one that is passing this message on from Couture to William. You know, got to get his statements and then the next three statements, how consistent are they relative to this initial statement? You know, William is now giving three more statements. How are those details changing and are those details changing as William is assessing, you know, what the circumstances of the case are and he's trying to come up with something to cover himself. And right now I can't say, you know, William's responsible or not. But this initial statement is sounding suspicious to me where he's just trying to set up an alibi. And I think Julia is killed between 6 and 6:45 roughly because you know, the time, the time of death estimates by the pathologists and stuff, again as I mentioned before, are really rough estimates.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Absolutely. And the medical examiner will clarify that later on and say, you know, this is my best guess. But he does revise it back to six o' clock essentially. So. So the day after the murder, two witnesses come forward. One is a woman named Sarah Jane Draper. She is the housekeeper and there's a kid named Alan Close, he's 14 and he's the milk boy. Remember those?

[Paul Holz]

Mm.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

So this is what the housekeeper says because they're wondering about the weapon. She says that a foot long piece of iron that generally leaned against the Fireplace in the parlor where Julia was killed is gone. And there is also a 9 inch poker that is missing from the kitchen fireplace. You know, she also says that the front bedroom where I described all of the bedding was out of place, that this would have never happened under Julia's watch. Everything was neat and proper. So, you know, again, we're in a time period where there's fireplaces in every room and there are weapons in every room. There's axes and in this case we've got pokers. So, you know, and we've had just decades worth of cases where you have things that people presume are the weapons and they've gone missing and they go, wait, where is that wrench? Fireplace poker, butcher knife.

[Paul Holz]

Yeah, well, and those two potential weapons, the fireplace poker, which is only nine inches long. And then you have this length of iron. And there doesn't appear that there's more description to what, what, what it is. But the 10 linear wounds that the pathologist notes on Julia, entirely consistent with being hit multiple times with a relatively narrow and potentially lightweight weapon like the poker. And then you potentially have with this piece of iron, which sounds like it's a more massive and longer weapon that could have been used to finish her off. And that would be very much in line with the damage done to her skull where now you have the brain and skull fragments, you know, being scattered around her head or at least where the blows were occurring. And you know, 2 inches wide, 3 inches deep. It could also be the end of something like that piece of iron just being thrust into her head.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, we'll come back to the weapons in a little bit. They are anxious to try to find these weapons. The milk boy. So this is what the milk boy says. And then you're gonna have to tell me about the reliability of witnesses regarding time. I don't doubt that Alan knows the circumstances in the right order. I wonder about the time he says he saw Julia the day of the murder at 6:45pm he says he dropped off milk at the house and then he stopped by the Johnson's house next door at 31 Wolverton street to give them milk. He comes back and he collects the empty jugs from Julia and she told him that she had been ill with bronchitis. So that's the thing that the milk boy contributes. So if we believe his time, then she's alive, you know, at 6:45 to 7:00'. Clock. I don't know how long that route was, but we might find out more when we get into Trial and I.

[Paul Holz]

Guess I just, just need to know how Alan knows what time he's at Julia's house. Does he have a watch on or is he just estimating because he knows his route and what time he left to start delivering milk and he would have been at Julia's house at 6:45. So it's really kind of drilling down on the veracity of Alan's recollection of that time that he saw Julia alive.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

The information I have is that there will be a defense and they will question poor 14 year old kid on the stand. He says he might have seen Julia alive between 6:30 and 6:45. So either he had a watch and he just wasn't sure of the time or you're right, he was estimating he's done this route a gazillion times and he knows what time he was supposed to be done. So you know, I mean this, this plays kind of into William's alibi because the police start running some practice runs on could he have done all of this because there were witnesses who saw him on trams. So the timing is important. And eventually Alan will say, well I know it was between 6:30 and 6:45 but still, you know, you've got people who say Allen said definitely 645 so he must have been wearing a watch. But you've got the defense eventually will shake him a little bit.

[Paul Holz]

Sure. And if there's, are there witnesses of Allen that can corroborate, you know, his movements during that time frame?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, presumably the Johnstons because he dropped off milk. However, I don't see whether or not they answered the door. So he might have left the milk on the stoop but they were home at 8:50 when William comes knocking.

[Paul Holz]

Yeah. And so let's say we know that Julia is found dead at 8:50. So now we have a window of 645 to 850. The homicide itself will not take long. That's a matter of a few minutes, you know. So now it is reconstructing Williams movements per these other witnesses. And see, well how could he have done all these movements after killing Julia around 6:45?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well before the police get to that they have a complication which is William's second statement where he has an idea about who actually did this. There are two people that he knows that he feels like had the potential here and they get drawn into this too. So on his second statement he says that there is a 22 year old named Richard Gordon. So we go by Gordon Perry and then another One who is a 30 year old named Joseph Caleb Marsden. So we kind of go by Perry and Marsden here. Both men are former colleagues of Williams at the insurance company. So in 1928, so this is about three years ago, Williams says he discovered that Perry, Gordon Perry had been skimming money from clients. He also knows that Joseph Marsden was let go for financial irregularities. So probably petty thieving. And he says that they are viable suspects because, number one, they're bad people. Sounds like, you know, there's people who would take money, but also because they knew William's schedule, because they knew the collecting schedule, kind of like with the milk boy. They know the collecting schedule of his company. So they know the layout of the house because they had been to the house before. They also knew where he had stored those payments on that really tall shelf in the cash box. So he said, I think that they went there to score money and, you know, ran into Julia, ended up having to kill her. And then I have an explanation for the guy. Now I have to keep looking at his pronunciation. I have an explanation for who Qualtrow is also. What do you think about these two guys?

[Paul Holz]

Maybe I'm demonstrating a bias against William right now, but these are just two individuals that he's pulling out of his past that have some criminal element to him, to him, and understands the job. But what happened inside this crime scene doesn't add up with these two guys coming in looking to financially profit from it. There's just too much focus on the homicide of Julia for me to buy that these two guys are there initially for financial purposes and then just abandon it because Julia ends up up confronting them. I don't know. I'm skeptical of that.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, let me explain. Quatro, and this is a real person. His name was Richard James Qualtrow. He has an alibi. He's not involved with this. The implication is that these two guys, Perry and Marsden, had used this client's name as a ruse to draw away William so that they could go and rob him and then presumably kill his wife. But William knew this guy, too. So it's not like, you know, a random name that William wouldn't have known. If William's guilty, like you believe, then he is trying to set potentially these two guys up also because he comes up with these names pretty quickly.

[Paul Holz]

So this Qualtro is R.W. qualtro, who's the one that supposedly gave the message through that captain in order to meet with William the next day, the next evening.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Right. So the same guy who didn't show up because this wasn't a real meeting, and it was a ruse to draw William out. And, you know, my point with this is, is that, yes, these two guys knew who that person was because he was a client at the insurance company, but so did William because William also worked there.

[Paul Holz]

Sure. And so they're trying to draw William out to meet with this, you know, set up this fake meeting. So now William's not at home, and they're going to go in and take everything they possibly can, but they don't. And then they kill Julia in the process.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yep. And, you know, it's so interesting because we really could go on and on about Gordon and Marsden and what their motives could be. Neither of them. I mean, both of them are kind of into petty crimes. Nobody's really had anything serious. Marsden was home at the flu by himself, which is a great alibi. Or a terrible one. And, you know, Gordon said he was with his girlfriend and she backed him up and that he visited somebody else and relatives, and they backed him up. So over the last hundred years, less than 100 years, fewer than 100 years, you've had people who have said, maybe these guys are the ones who did it, but the police really never thought so. They really felt like this was. This was. Marsden had no motivation, and neither did Gordon. Exactly. What you're saying, based on what they saw, taken or not taken, especially Paul, if they knew his route, wouldn't they know that he was going to be back home, you know, at a certain time? And especially if they sent him someplace far flung, they would have to know it was going to take him this long to get home from a meeting once he realized this meeting wasn't going to happen. I mean, I would just think that they would have thought they'd have all the time in the world if they planned it to take whatever they wanted. And yet they didn't. Right.

[Paul Holz]

Well, and also, if they're. If they're planning this far ahead and they knew William, they most certainly must have expected that Julia would be home.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah.

[Paul Holz]

You know, so there's an inconsistency. That's where anytime you see an inconsistency, that is a red flag. You would think that to commit this crime, they would have chosen a time in which they knew that both William and Julia would be gone.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah, you would think so. Yeah. I think most people now know, you know, that that whole thing around them is falling apart. Let me tell you about weapons that were one that was discovered around the time of the murder, and then One that was discovered just decades later. And this probably won't help Williams case with you at all, but they find a small axe in a basket under the stairs. It was covered or hidden. I don't know what we want to even think about that under old clothing. But it is determined not to be the murder weapon. They must have tested for blood, and, you know, okay, it came out negative. But on top of that, he does have an insurance policy on Julia. But it's maybe about $13,000, not very much at all, you know?

[Paul Holz]

Sure. You know. Well, it doesn't sound like the small acts is probative at all. Right. And then, of course, you know, he's profiting from his wife's death as a result of the insurance. You know, now it's, well, what's going on in William's life? Is he, you know, so desperate for money that he's willing to kill his wife for what is a relatively small insurance policy? Or is there something else going on in William's life that is maybe better motivation for him to kill Julia?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Let me draw you back to one more weapon theory, and then we can talk a little bit more about that.

[Paul Holz]

Okay?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

So the author that I told you about, Joe Nickel, he found out that in about the mid-1930s, a few years after this happened, that new tenants moved in and they wanted to install electricity. So they removed the stove that was there in the kitchen. When they did, they found an iron bar wedged between the wall and the hearth. Now, we don't know anything about it, but Joe Nickel, and I think rightly so, believes this must have been the murder weapon. The missing iron bar, which I'm picturing as sort of like a crowbar maybe. I don't know if there was a curved in or anything, but that's what I was sort of picturing. This footlong that was missing from the fireplace, according to the housekeeper. So Joe Nichols says he shoved it behind the stove, and that's, you know, where it stayed.

[Paul Holz]

Did they turn that into law enforcement? Seems strange to me that somebody remodeling is going, oh, we found this iron bar and becomes aware that potentially it's suspicious because a homicide had occurred in the house. Is that what's going on?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, this is about. Probably about four or five years later, after all of this happened. Okay, so this is. This is quite a bit of time afterward, and the case comes to a conclusion. So, no, I mean, that doesn't show up. That showed up specifically in Joe's research, not in our research. So I think this Was a story that just sort of, they said this seems likely because they just ultimately it doesn't sound like they ever found the fireplace poker.

[Paul Holz]

I've seen bludgeonings with similar type of weapons in which the offender fails to penetrate the skull or fracture the, the skull and basically it's causing bleeding injuries because when this type of weapon strikes the scalp, the skin splits, it creates those lacerations and there could be a lot of blood. And in something like the Golden State Killer case, in one of the homicides, actually in a couple of the homicides, he switches from a lightweight, narrow weapon to a much more massive weapon to finish the victims off. That's what I think is potentially going on here with Julia, where the, the maybe initial blows, those 10 incisive injuries that the pathologist noted on her head, it's probably consistent with this, this fireplace poker. But then he goes to the more massive iron bar. Now the one that is discovered behind the stove, is it the one that was used to kill Julia? At this point it's just absolute speculation unless it still exists and you know, blood is on it and we could do DNA testing to show.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, let's get to the timeline because this is what leads to his arrest. The police retrace what he says his route was and we do have people who witnessed him, you know, on these different trams. And what's interesting is they are disagreeing with you on one point. They said if we believe Alan, the milk boy, and he was seen at 6:45, when you add in the walk to the tram station, the first tram station, all the tram operators, when they say they saw him when he returned back home, they do this special math and it turns out that William only has five minutes to kill his wife and then clean all traces of the blood from himself off. But then we have that jacket and then you've already said that you can kill somebody in five seconds, let alone five minutes is not that big of a thing.

[Paul Holz]

I'm not overly concerned about that space of time at all. You know, especially if he's, let's say he's wearing that blood stained jacket that is found underneath Julia, then that jacket in essence is a shield. Most people think that when you have these types of homicides that the offender must just be covered in blood. No, they might have a few drops of blood or there may be some spatter low down on their pants legs if they're bludgeoning somebody whose head is down on the floor. But typically, you know, the, the offenders walk away from these types of crimes with minimal amount of. Of blood evidence on them. That jacket may have been a perfect shield. And now he's leaving it behind, you know, and because he recognizes it's got blood on it. So that just adds up from. From my perspective, you know, and I have to rely upon these original investigators for how they, you know, calculated out his movements. But if he has five or 10 minutes, he could commit this homicide. He could generally get cleaned up, and then he's on the road and he's already thought of how he's going to establish his alibi. So that would suggest that there's a level of pre planning, and he's also taking the time to stage the crime scene to make it look like there was some modest financial gain that the offender got, the intruder got. So, no, I mean, they found a block of time in which they can't account for. And so it's possible that, you know, the timeline still fits with William being able to commit this crime.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

And, you know, we already were questioning the milk boy. And then you've got to question all of these tram operators, you know, the people who have seen him. If everybody's one minute off, that buys them an extra seven minutes.

[Paul Holz]

Yeah, I think, you know, this timeline where you have the milk boy, you have tram operators, you have William giving certain statements, you know, I think it's all just. It's very loose. I just don't see where you're going to get things down to the minute. You know, it's probably going to be down to 10 minutes or 15 minutes one way or the other.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yep. And. And I think that's what we kind of come down to. There's debate over the locks. The locks on the front and the back are bad on the doors. Could anybody have gotten in there? Unless you had a key. Did. Was Julia able to. There's so much debate over that that it doesn't matter because she could have just opened the door.

[Paul Holz]

Absolutely.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I mean, you know, if these were strangers. So that's a little silly to a certain extent. And then, you know, There is Professor McFall who goes, Listen, I mean, I can't give you an exact time of death. And. And there is the other issue. So you're talking about a tight timeline, according to William, that gives him a lot of wiggle room. And the prosecutor doesn't have any other real evidence. And also, Paul, they don't have a motive, which, you know, juries want a motive. There just does not seem to be a big motive here. The defense says William, as I said, doesn't have a motive. He is very proper. I mean he is a professor. He is not a frenzied person. There's no evidence that he made the phone call. You know, that was the beginning of this ruse. You said that he believed that there were witnesses who said the person who made the phone call to the captain who took the note down for William was not William.

[Paul Holz]

Sure.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I mean, I don't know how you can testify to that, but that's what they say. And they said because of William's kidney condition, he was basically not able to do all of this physically able to do all of this stuff. I don't, I don't know if that's actually true or not, but that's the, that's the defense's theory.

[Paul Holz]

Yeah, I, but that I don't buy at all. You know, he's a 52 year old man. He can most certainly swing a fireplace poker or this iron bar. You know, the victim is 69 year old woman and you know, motive. It could be as simple as they got into an argument.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah, absolutely.

[Paul Holz]

And he flies off the handle. As you know, I always go back to the core of the case, which is the crime scene and what happened to the victim. And as I'm hearing about the case, I think I'm stronger than ever thinking that William killed Julia. And this isn't a sexually motivated crime. This is not a financially motivated crime. Bludgeoning, often as a result of a, a kind of like an angry type of anger retaliatory type of offender. And William's statements and, and all that just, I'm just not buying it. I, I right now I'm kind of really, you know, tunnel visioned on, on William at this point.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, what do you think the jury's verdict is going to be? Because we're at that point.

[Paul Holz]

It's, it's, it's almost like a coin toss with these types of cases. Because I know, you know, know with the lack of good forensic evidence that we would have today, you know, it's the circumstances, you could see where a jurors, jurors would just acquit going. There isn't a case here. There's lack of probable cause even for arrest. But then we're also dealing with this time frame and we're dealing with, you know, England and the Liverpool area, you know, and you know better than I in terms of, of how jurors would be thinking about a case such as this in that region.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, if you pretend that none of our forensics really exist today except Perhaps if you go back to 1931, fingerprinting, there were no fingerprints. It sounds like for them to compare to, there were no witnesses. There's no murder weapon that they can identify. There's no blood on him.

[Paul Holz]

Right.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

And he has what could be or could not be a good alibi. Then this should be what, a non guilty? You know, should he be acquitted or.

[Paul Holz]

No, I would just say he's a suspect and they haven't developed probable cause for arrest.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay.

[Paul Holz]

That's, that's where, you know, I would be. And so, you know, if this, if I were a juror sitting on and this is all that they're presenting, I'd go, well, yeah, I think there's, there's enough reason to suspect that he responsible, but I can't vote guilty. And now I think this, you know, here in the United States, you know, the people run the risk of an acquittal and William could never be retried for murder.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay. The jury comes back and they find him guilty and he's sentenced to hang.

[Paul Holz]

Oh, good God. Okay. I guess I, I expected that that was going to be, you know, where this is going. It's just as much as I suspect William, I just don't think they have a strong enough case to take his life.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, it turns out that the Court of Criminal Appeals agrees with you and they overturn the verdict.

[Paul Holz]

That's good.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

They said the evidence cannot support a guilty verdict. This is the only, this is only the third time in the history of the English Court of Criminal Appeal that they've completely overturned a death sentence and a guilty verdict. So here's what's interesting about William moving forward. He tries to go back to his normal life, but he has, you know, people hounding him all the time. He's described in the newspapers and to his face it sounds like as a sex maniac, a vampire, a sadist, a mad scientist who preferred human beings to guinea pigs. Of course, the customers don't want to have anything to do with him. He gets hate mail, he gets death threats. He ends up, you know, initially taking a clerical job and then he ends up moving out of Liverpool. And I would think that he would sort of fade off into the darkness. He does not. So In May of 1932, he publishes an article in a magazine called John Bull. And it is titled I know the Murderer. And this is what he says. The murderer followed my wife into the sitting room, and as she bent down and lit the gas fire, he struck her, possibly with a spanner, which is a wrench he had now to kill her. To strike her again while she lay on the floor. And him standing over her would mean the upward spurting of blood. Two strides took him into the lobby where he had observed, left my Macintosh hanging. And he held it as a shield between him and her body while he belabored her to death. She must have been felled as soon as she lit the fire, and before she could regulate the flow of gas, it would have been at full blaze. And as he bent at the fireplace, the flame set light to the Macintosh. Then he would see that the bottom edge of her skirt was burning. And throwing the Macintosh down, he must have dragged her away from the fire and onto part of the coat, leaving her in the position that I found her.

[Paul Holz]

I believe what he's saying.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Why would you do that, though? I mean, why would you say all that in a magazine?

[Paul Holz]

He can claim that he's reconstructing how this crime occurred based on the details he heard at trial or what he was fed during the investigation. But I also believe that he's. I mean, he's accounting for a lot of the evidence and how it was found and the reason for it. And I'm going, you know what? I bet there's a lot of truth. But he's just saying somebody else did it. Yeah, he knows the murderer. It's because he's the murderer.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

And he says one last thing. This is how he closes out this piece. I know the murderer as readily as I can identify a volume on my shelves. So can I put my hand on the murderer? Only one name have I kept locked in my mind. The name of the man who killed my wife. And that is the end of the article.

[Paul Holz]

It's that. That's an interesting thing, how he's, you know, he. He is being vilified in, in very bizarre ways. It's interesting how the public, you know, he's a vampire or he's a sex fiend and all that. Well, this crime, isn't that right? So obviously he's now getting this. This attention that is really bad. He goes to the point, moving out, and yet he feels compelled to write an article saying, I know who the murderer is. And it's almost a tease. This is the. Seems like he's getting back at the people who are vilifying him, saying, oh, I know who did it. I'm assuming over there in England, he can't. He couldn't have been tried again. Once it was overturned, he's basically acquitted. Right. Sort of like what we've had with Other episodes for me, I don't think the case was strong against William to a point to where you could go and convict him, But I think they went after the right guy.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, I want to get to a tiny point that I think fascinates people. So at trial, the prosecutors had said they believe that William took all of his clothes off and wore this Macintosh so that he wouldn't get any blood on himself.

[Paul Holz]

Okay.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

The author, Joe Nickel, thinks that probably he just threw the jacket, the Macintosh, on top of Julia to block the blood. What I heard you say was people don't know about the lack of blood that can happen at a crime scene like this, that maybe he isn't going to be covered with blood at all. And then he gives you this explanation. So what makes sense to you out of all of this?

[Paul Holz]

Well, first, you have to understand that William probably has never killed anybody else in this manner. So he doesn't really know exactly what's going to happen. And especially if this is. He's flying off in a fit of rage where now he's just, you know, striking Julia with a weapon. The Macintosh may simply have been. He had killed Julia, and she's laying there. And because this is a behavioral thing that offenders do when they are. They are close to their victims, is they cover their victims up in terms of. They don't want to look at what they've done to somebody that they care about. And then the coach catches fire, and now he's having to move Julia, and the Macintosh gets kind of balled up underneath her, and more blood staining is transferred. I mean, it could. Something as simple as that. I know I talked about him using this Macintosh as a shield. You know, I'm not backing away from that, but I think the Macintosh could have inadvertently, if he had it on, was going to wear it out to go meet up with, you know, whoever. He's just coincidentally had that on, and then he took it off to cover Julie up. But it's. It's very possible that he wasn't wearing anything and. And got very little blood on. On himself. And just, you know, the Macintosh was an easy thing to throw over her because it was something that was readily available.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay. Well, the ending of this, to me, is some modicum of justice, I suppose. He has kidney disease, and he dies two years after he kills his wife.

[Paul Holz]

Okay.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

He is buried next to her, which is unfortunate. You know, the theory that I think a lot of people kind of go with is that for some reason, he wanted his freedom, or you're right. He got into an argument with her and then this is how it all happened. But isn't this too much pre planning for it to be an argument, do you think?

[Paul Holz]

Well, you know, I know when his establishment of this alibi would possibly indicate that there was some pre planning element to this. And then why would he kill Julia? You know, was this where he did want to move on with his life and didn't want her? You know, I don't know how the divorce process would be out there, you know, is he trying to maintain, you know, his financial assets that she possibly could, could. Could benefit from, you know, and, and that's why he's killing her. But there's also a possibility that this was all done on the fly, you know, and this whole. Yeah, going out and trying to find, you know, track down this guy, you know, he just took advantage that that arrangement was there and purposely got lost and tried to talk to a bunch of people. So they all saw him out there.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, that is the end of that story. A lot of twists and turns. I think we both suspected William from the beginning. I think we're right about that. But the lack of forensics and just, you know, everything shows the struggles that investigators had back then to someone who was so clearly guilty, but they just couldn't prove it.

[Paul Holz]

Right? No, that's, you know, and that's where we have progressed, fortunately, you know, and as technology, you know, gets better, we're seeing where just, just cases that were made on circumstantial evidence. Well, they found innocent people guilty, you know, but I think there's enough indication here where William is responsible. They just didn't have enough to prove the case.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

All right, next week, different time period, I promise. And I'm looking forward to it.

[Paul Holz]

All right. As always, Kate, thank you.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Thank you. This has been an exactly right production.

[Paul Holz]

For our sources and show notes, go to exactlyrightmedia.com buriedbones sources.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Our senior producer is Alexis Amorosi.

[Paul Holz]

Research by Alison Trouble and Kate Winkler Dawson.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Our mixing engineer is Ben Talladay.

[Paul Holz]

Our theme song is by Tom Breyfogel.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Our artwork is by Vanessa Lilac, executive.

[Paul Holz]

Produced by Karen Kilgariff, Georgia Heartstar and Danielle Kramer.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

You can follow Buried Bones on Instagram and Facebook @BuriedBones Pod.

[Paul Holz]

Kate's most recent book, all that Is Wicked, A Gilded Age Story of Murder and the Race to Decode the Criminal Mind, is available now.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

And Paul's best selling memoir, Unmasked My Life Solving America's Cold Cases, is also available now.

[Paul Holz]

Listen to Buried bones on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

[Katie Whelan]

If you're feeling exhausted, puffy, anxious, foggy, gaining weight, or just not like yourself, you're not imagining it. Women in their 30s, 40s and 50s are experiencing massive hormonal shifts and no one is explaining what's actually happening. I'm Katie Whelan, co founder of joy. I built Joy because I lived this the fatigue, the mood swings, the weight changes, the confusion. Your symptoms are biological, not personal, and AI generated lab reports won't fix them. Every Joy Lab includes a visit with a licensed clinician who specializes in women's hormones and connects every biomarker to how you feel energy metabolism, mood, sleep, skin weight, everything. Then we personalize real solutions hormone therapy, peptide therapy, supplements and lifestyle protocols. Get started at joyandblokes. Com today. This month, new customers get 50% off labs and you can add our estrogen face cream for just $1 with clinician approval. Use promo code [e-mail].