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).