Tweet
Originally posted by caz
View Post
Thanks John. Well if his interest in chemistry was known about - or could easily have come to light - he'd have been taking a double risk by choosing poison and hoping her death certificate would record some natural cause and not be questioned.
The method adopted by the killer doesn't help to clear or incriminate Wallace. But if he was guilty it wasn't a bad choice, because it was plausibly a spur-of-the-moment act of brutality by someone who picked up the nearest blunt instrument, which would not fit well with Wallace setting the whole thing up with the Qualtrough call the night before. It would fit better with someone who wanted access to Julia and/or the family valuables, but hadn't intended to commit the capital crime of murder.
I still think it's possible that Julia and a lover arranged the Qualtrough business - the unfamiliar name and non-existent address - to give themselves some more time together, and something went horribly wrong. Sex is a strong enough motivator to want a husband out of the way, but with Julia still in the house and not a huge amount to steal, a money motive would seem weaker, and smacks to me of a red herring.
I realise a lover would have preferred to get out sharpish after killing the object of his being there, but he'd have felt safer in the long run to stage the robbery if there was any chance that Julia had confided in a friend about his existence. It would be unlikely, in my view, that Julia would have gone into fine details with a friend about times and places, but she might have let a name slip, or something else that could help identify the man. If the police found him and asked questions, at least the robbery would suggest a motive other than adultery.
Incidentally, Parry wouldn't necessarily have been the lover if she took one. It could have been anyone really, as she must have gone out shopping and so on by herself on occasions, and there will always be men out there who can use flattery to good advantage, and don't care who they use it on if it does the trick. If there was a sexual imbalance between the Wallaces, or perhaps a lack of physical affection on his part (he said he patted her on the shoulder as he left, not even a peck on the cheek), a woman of 69 was not too old to yearn for some intimacy. Either of them could have been feeling the age difference more keenly by this stage of the relationship, with Wallace possibly losing interest in the physical side, and Julia in turn needing reassurance that she wasn't totally past it.
Blimey, I'd better watch out, I am older than my old man to the tune of four and a half years.
Love,
Caz
X
The method adopted by the killer doesn't help to clear or incriminate Wallace. But if he was guilty it wasn't a bad choice, because it was plausibly a spur-of-the-moment act of brutality by someone who picked up the nearest blunt instrument, which would not fit well with Wallace setting the whole thing up with the Qualtrough call the night before. It would fit better with someone who wanted access to Julia and/or the family valuables, but hadn't intended to commit the capital crime of murder.
I still think it's possible that Julia and a lover arranged the Qualtrough business - the unfamiliar name and non-existent address - to give themselves some more time together, and something went horribly wrong. Sex is a strong enough motivator to want a husband out of the way, but with Julia still in the house and not a huge amount to steal, a money motive would seem weaker, and smacks to me of a red herring.
I realise a lover would have preferred to get out sharpish after killing the object of his being there, but he'd have felt safer in the long run to stage the robbery if there was any chance that Julia had confided in a friend about his existence. It would be unlikely, in my view, that Julia would have gone into fine details with a friend about times and places, but she might have let a name slip, or something else that could help identify the man. If the police found him and asked questions, at least the robbery would suggest a motive other than adultery.
Incidentally, Parry wouldn't necessarily have been the lover if she took one. It could have been anyone really, as she must have gone out shopping and so on by herself on occasions, and there will always be men out there who can use flattery to good advantage, and don't care who they use it on if it does the trick. If there was a sexual imbalance between the Wallaces, or perhaps a lack of physical affection on his part (he said he patted her on the shoulder as he left, not even a peck on the cheek), a woman of 69 was not too old to yearn for some intimacy. Either of them could have been feeling the age difference more keenly by this stage of the relationship, with Wallace possibly losing interest in the physical side, and Julia in turn needing reassurance that she wasn't totally past it.
Blimey, I'd better watch out, I am older than my old man to the tune of four and a half years.
Love,
Caz
X
Thanks, I think you make some excellent points. Regarding Wallace's interest in chemistry, he actually had a laboratory at home so it was an interest that he would be difficult to disguise! However, that wouldn't necessarily have presented him from arrogantly believing he could get away with a poisoning.
I agree that the method adopted by the killer is more consistent with an unplanned attack, possibly perpetrated by a lover or as a consequence of a robbery gone wrong. Interestingly, the front bedroom was in a state of some disarray, with bedclothes half on and half off the bed, and two pillows lying in the fireplace. Two hats and three handbags of Julia's were also on the bed. Does this scene suggest that Julia may have been entertaining a lover, not necessarily Parry? One difficulty, however, with the murder by lover argument is that it might be expected that an argument, maybe a violent argument, would have preceded the assault and, of course, the neighbours heard nothing.
In respect of the robbery, the cabinet where the insurance money was kept was forced, and £4 was taken from the cash box. I think this strongly suggests that the crime was carried out by someone who was familiar with the Wallace household, i.e. because they seemed to know where the collection money was kept, and this would tend to exclude a common burglar, such as the Anfield housebreaker.
I agree there are problems with a money motive.Thus, there was money and silver in Julia's handbag that wasn't taken, and £5 that Wallace kept upstairs in a jar was also untouched. This goes against robbery as a principal motive; it also causes further problems for Wallace's candidacy, as he drew the police's attention to the untouched £5-he could, of course, have kept quiet about it-undermining the alternative robbery scenario which he was supposed to have staged.
As an afterthought, I think the forced cabinet creates problems for my theory that Parry committed the murder following a robbery gone wrong. After all, it was hardly a subtle act, so it's difficult to see how he could have avoided drawing Julia's attention to what he was doing.
Comment