Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Hm, well what strikes me is that when Wallace gave the names of people HE suspects, he gave a LOT of information on Gordon Parry and Marsden. He essentially was saying they did it in so many words.

Coincidentally both of these men had no alibi for the call, and then Marsden for the night of the killing. Not only that but aspects of the event linked to them, like the Qualtrough alias to Marsden and Parry being a member of the drama club at the cafe. Both had also left the Pru with shady records.

To ME it suggests that Wallace KNEW they'd have no alibi because he involved them in it, or alternatively he was innocent and to him those were the most likely suspects.

Otherwise he is EXTRAORDINARILY lucky that both men he named as prime suspects had B.S. or weak alibis. Imagine they both had strong alibis, he'd basically be f*cked. So he must have been very lucky.

He was certainly pointing the police in their direction due to the added information. Considerably more on Parry than Marsden of course. I don’t think that it was Wallace’s exclusive plan to fit up either Parry or Marsden. The priority was to kill Julia and ensure that he himself didn’t look guilty. I think that he threw them both up as possibilities for the police. If they didn’t have an alibi then all well and good (as you say, Wallace had no way of knowing) but if they’d had an alibi then the police would have been forced to look elsewhere.

Something else I'd like to bring up is Alan Close. Say Wallace had acted all alone and was in fact waiting for the milk boy to come before he could leave home. Put yourself in his shoes. At what point do you become antsy and assume he's not going to come at all? If you expected him at 6.05, would you wait 30 entire minutes? You'd think after about 20 you'd assume he's not coming and have to enact the plan.

If Alan did come at that time he wouldn't have been an alibi anyway since he'd have arrived way too early at Menlove had he left home within the same time frame. So I'm not even sure Alan Close was ever even part of his plan.

Its a good point. Maybe if Close had been 2 minutes later things might have been different? Maybe he had a plan b?

Something interesting... The Holme family reported hearing a crash like someone falling to the floor AFTER Alan had opened the door, and that the door closed after this. It seems basically impossible that could be accurate, unless Wallace had brought someone in with him when he got back from work.

But if Wallace had bought someone else home with him then what would they have been doing to make the crash if Julia was busy dealing with Alan Close?

I also read a very strong point re: robbery. A burglar surely would just grab the box? It was only a small thing right? I don't know. Why WOULDN'T they do that? The fact they killed Julia obv it was someone she knew even if it was a robbery or they would've just bolted.

Someone proposing The Accomplice Theory would give you a reason WWH. For me the massive point against it being a robbery is the almost complete lack of an attempt to steal anything. With Julia dead and Wallace out of the way a burglar/murderer would have had plenty of time.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hm, well what strikes me is that when Wallace gave the names of people HE suspects, he gave a LOT of information on Gordon Parry and Marsden. He essentially was saying they did it in so many words.

Coincidentally both of these men had no alibi for the call, and then Marsden for the night of the killing. Not only that but aspects of the event linked to them, like the Qualtrough alias to Marsden and Parry being a member of the drama club at the cafe. Both had also left the Pru with shady records.

To ME it suggests that Wallace KNEW they'd have no alibi because he involved them in it, or alternatively he was innocent and to him those were the most likely suspects.

Otherwise he is EXTRAORDINARILY lucky that both men he named as prime suspects had B.S. or weak alibis. Imagine they both had strong alibis, he'd basically be f*cked. So he must have been very lucky.

Something else I'd like to bring up is Alan Close. Say Wallace had acted all alone and was in fact waiting for the milk boy to come before he could leave home. Put yourself in his shoes. At what point do you become antsy and assume he's not going to come at all? If you expected him at 6.05, would you wait 30 entire minutes? You'd think after about 20 you'd assume he's not coming and have to enact the plan.

If Alan did come at that time he wouldn't have been an alibi anyway since he'd have arrived way too early at Menlove had he left home within the same time frame. So I'm not even sure Alan Close was ever even part of his plan.

Something interesting... The Holme family reported hearing a crash like someone falling to the floor AFTER Alan had opened the door, and that the door closed after this. It seems basically impossible that could be accurate, unless Wallace had brought someone in with him when he got back from work.

I also read a very strong point re: robbery. A burglar surely would just grab the box? It was only a small thing right? I don't know. Why WOULDN'T they do that? The fact they killed Julia obv it was someone she knew even if it was a robbery or they would've just bolted.

[etenguy]

Murder By Decree. You might have guessed from my name that I’m a huge fan of Holmes. I collect books, movies, autographs etc. When I was in London last I visited the location were they filmed the scene outside the theatre at the beginning of that movie.

I pass the sherlock holmes museum quite often but not visited. I enjoy the books and really liked the re-imagined version with Benedict Cumberbatch. My favourite re-imagining of holmes, though, is Mr Spock who claims Holmes as an ancestor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, saw a film based on that in which Sherlock Holmes solved the case - most entertaining.

Murder By Decree. You might have guessed from my name that I’m a huge fan of Holmes. I collect books, movies, autographs etc. When I was in London last I visited the location were they filmed the scene outside the theatre at the beginning of that movie.

[etenguy]

Maybe it’s the same as when I’ve said that I wish that the Knight Theory was true.

Yes, saw a film based on that in which Sherlock Holmes solved the case - most entertaining.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not entirely sure why, but I'm very drawn to finding an alternative explanation. Rod's theory was very seductive, but in the end not entirely convincing, at least to me. There is such ambiguity about the crime it deserves a better explanation. The romantic about me feels sure that Julia deserved better than to be betrayed by the man she loved. And yet, from what we know, it seems that was her fate.

Maybe it’s the same as when I’ve said that I wish that the Knight Theory was true.

[etenguy]

I do know what you mean though Eten. Virtually every point has a possible alternative explanation.

I'm not entirely sure why, but I'm very drawn to finding an alternative explanation. Rod's theory was very seductive, but in the end not entirely convincing, at least to me. There is such ambiguity about the crime it deserves a better explanation. The romantic about me feels sure that Julia deserved better than to be betrayed by the man she loved. And yet, from what we know, it seems that was her fate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

And yet we have to acknowledge that:

a) we can only speculate on motive (bad marriage, gay lover kept secret even after murder, intellectual exercise (wanted to outwit police)) - who knows true
b) the testimony of the garage crew about Parry and the bloody car points to Parry (I'm not convinced by it, or if true that it was necessarily connected - but we can't ignore either) true, we have to consider it but I think the facts make it overwhelmingly unlikely
c) the how is still logistically difficult to reconstruct I don’t think it’s too difficult
d) Wallace's behaviour post murder seemed genuinely affectionate to Julia (remorse perhaps?) it does but maybe he was a good liar. If someone can kill brutally it’s not unlikely that they can act the grieving spouse.
e) maybe someone else wanted Julia dead and concocted this convoluted plan (but who or why would be only speculative without more information) it’s possible but it’s difficult to imagine knowing her limited circle.
f) naked Wallace with a mac shield just seems so unlikely. I don’t think he needed to be naked.
g) the milk boy calling really narrows the window of opportunity for Wallace - did he really have time? I think he had between 10-12 minutes which I don’t see as a problem.

Despite all the above, Wallace is still the bookies favourite from what we currently know, at least in my opinion.

I do know what you mean though Eten. Virtually every point has a possible alternative explanation.

[etenguy]

It will not surprise you in the slightest when I say.....I agree.

Hi Herlock

And yet we have to acknowledge that:

a) we can only speculate on motive (bad marriage, gay lover kept secret even after murder, intellectual exercise (wanted to outwit police)) - who knows
b) the testimony of the garage crew about Parry and the bloody car points to Parry (I'm not convinced by it, or if true that it was necessarily connected - but we can't ignore either)
c) the how is still logistically difficult to reconstruct
d) Wallace's behaviour post murder seemed genuinely affectionate to Julia (remorse perhaps?)
e) maybe someone else wanted Julia dead and concocted this convoluted plan (but who or why would be only speculative without more information)
f) naked Wallace with a mac shield just seems so unlikely.
g) the milk boy calling really narrows the window of opportunity for Wallace - did he really have time?

Despite all the above, Wallace is still the bookies favourite from what we currently know, at least in my opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Eten

.
There are indeed some good points. But the phone call to the chess club seems important and doesn't feature (unless you believe the phone call was not connected and is entirely coincidental). It would for instance be highly indicative that it was not the local housebreaker. It would undermine that someone was trying to frame Wallace during the murder (else why provide a potential alternative suspect, the caller). It also gives Wallace his alibi, such as it is. It is also indicative that the caller knew Wallace (and therefore by extension that Julia existed).

I can’t disconnect the phone call and the murder. I believe that the person that made the call was either the murderer or connected to the murder. WWH has suggested that Wallace might have tricked Parry into making the call but I have to disagree on this particular point. I just don’t think that Wallace would have risked Parry cracking under police questioning and spilling the beans (especially as he had an alibi for the time of the murder.)

.
I do agree that the two most likely potential motives are murder or robbery. The reason for the phone call seems to me most likely to provide an alibi for Wallace. I can see no strong reason to get Mr Wallace out of the house to commit a robbery in the knowledge that Mrs Wallace would be there. If that was the intention of the call it would seem superfluous since the house was only occupied by Mrs Wallace on the night the call was made. In any event, there were predictable times when both would be out of the house and that would seem the best opportunity to commit a robbery.

One of my strongest objections to the Accomplice Theory is that it’s reliant upon William telling Julia, not only about where he was going on the night of the murder but actually mentioning the name Qualtrough as this might allow Julia to let him in (as we know from Wallace that there were only a select few that she would admit into the house if she was alone.) If Parry had planned this there’s no reason at all for him to be confident that this might have occurred. Julia took no interest in William’s business dealings (Parry would likely have been aware of this) and so it might easily have been the case that William just said “I have to go out on business tonight.” As it happens he did mention the area because Amy confirmed this but he didn’t mention Qualtrough as far as we know. So we are left to believe that an extremely reticent Julia would have admitted a complete stranger, after dark, whilst her husband was out. Apart from anything we have the chance of scandal and rumour of course. Even if someone watching the front door from across the road didn’t know for certain that Julia was alone in the house (despite the fact that she answered the door after dark and not her husband) they would have found out if they’d seen William return via the front door later that evening.

.
I am therefore of the view that murder was the motive, committed by someone who knew the Wallaces. If you start from that premise, motive murder, then it must have been Wallace or else Julia would have been murdered during the Chess tournament.

[/QUOTE]

It will not surprise you in the slightest when I say.....I agree.

[etenguy]

Good thoughts as ever WWH. There’s so much going on and most things that any of us say can have some kind of alternative explanation. I’m still as certain as I can personally be that Wallace killed Julia alone because of an unhappy marriage and a build up of resentment leading him to think of a way out of a remaining few years of misery.

There are indeed some good points. But the phone call to the chess club seems important and doesn't feature (unless you believe the phone call was not connected and is entirely coincidental). It would for instance be highly indicative that it was not the local housebreaker. It would undermine that someone was trying to frame Wallace during the murder (else why provide a potential alternative suspect, the caller). It also gives Wallace his alibi, such as it is. It is also indicative that the caller knew Wallace (and therefore by extension that Julia existed).

I do agree that the two most likely potential motives are murder or robbery. The reason for the phone call seems to me most likely to provide an alibi for Wallace. I can see no strong reason to get Mr Wallace out of the house to commit a robbery in the knowledge that Mrs Wallace would be there. If that was the intention of the call it would seem superfluous since the house was only occupied by Mrs Wallace on the night the call was made. In any event, there were predictable times when both would be out of the house and that would seem the best opportunity to commit a robbery.

I am therefore of the view that murder was the motive, committed by someone who knew the Wallaces. If you start from that premise, motive murder, then it must have been Wallace or else Julia would have been murdered during the Chess tournament.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed the thread is rather barren which is a shame as it's a great case.

Hi WWH,

I can only blame the A6 case for missing your post. When there’s a new post on that thread there’s no indication on the main forum. I should have checked. Good points as ever. I’ll just put in a few comments.

When you look at it I mean the two real probabilities are only a murder or robbery motive.

Although I don’t go for the Accomplice Theory as you know my own opinion is that it’s either Wallace alone or Accomplice Theory. Although of course I wouldn’t completely count out other scenarios. I do believe that Parry’s alibi precludes him but some disagree of course.

Because no sound was heard and how Julia was positioned etc. it seems very likely she did not catch a burglar so I think that can be ruled out.

Good point but a proposer of the AT would say that an unexpected blow would have eliminated the possibility of Julia crying out. Simple burglary can be eliminated of course due to there being no signs of a break in.

So then you either have someone who went in there to murder Julia and staged the robbery, or someone who went in there to rob the home and planned to kill her in order to enable them to do that. So you either have someone with an interest in killing Julia for whatever reason, or someone who is willing to commit murder to steal money.

Intake your point. But because I’ve already mentioned the AT i won’t bother to keep inserting it as an addition.

Another possibility is the person did not know Wallace had a wife or thought she was not there and managed to enter the home without signs of break in. For me that’s difficult to imagine. Julia, in the house alone, being so careless with her own safety as to leave access to an intruder. Also, if someone got to know Wallace with the intent of burglary it’s difficult to imagine them not being aware of Julia.There was a housebreaker in the area and if only somewhat familiar with the Wallaces may well have thought he lived alone... Of course the issue still would be where Julia was found first and foremost. Agreed. A vital point. Would she ever go into the parlor of her own accord? She might have decided to have an hour playing the piano while William was out? Was she planning for or already had a visitor over? Was the coat really used to protect from the cold? If it was then it’s perhaps strange that she wasn’t wearing it when she went outside to the back gate with William. If this is the scenario then you have to imagine that the burglar checked around the house (or was somehow mega quiet in looting the box), was surprised to find Julia, and killed her with an unspecified blunt weapon... Would this attacker then grab the men's jacket and place it under her to frame the husband (not that this was the original plan, but a quick thinking decision)? I can’t see that’s as likely on the spur of the moment. How would he escape undetected? Did he live in one of the homes joining the back passage? Leave the poor old Johnston’s alone. Or had another place to go very close by where he was unlikely to be seen by anyone? Did he just cut through a tonne of alleys and parks? It was dark of course and as long as the killer didn’t act suspiciously. But of course a killer that took no precautions was more likely to have blood on him which might have showed up if he’d passed someone near to a street lamp. Then again, if he’d taken off an overcoat, killed Julia, then put it back on?

If you can place Julia in the parlor without having admitted a guest then it's possible. Would she set up the parlor for William's return for some unknown reason? I don’t know? Without knowing their habits it’s impossible to know if they would have considered it too late for a musical evening.



Because bloodied assailants were not seen then it makes it most likely someone lived in a house very close by or had a getaway car ready or something of that nature (or they planned to kill her and had means of accounting for this factor). For them to be unseen it's more probably they would leave that house by the back door and get to a safe spot where they're safe from being sighted within the shortest time possible...Backdoor has to be the likeliest exit. For me one of the points against the AT is that no one was seen or heard at the front door and would Julia really have wanted to set tongues wagging by admitting a strange man whilst William was out?

If Julia admitted the burglar WHO out of anyone she knows would be evil enough to plan her murder just to steal money? Good point. Was anyone particularly hard up? Why would they not invent a story to get both Wallace and his wife out of the home if they knew her? It might have been more difficult to come up with a plan to get them both out of the house? If someone invited them both out and they were robbed the police might have thought it a bit of a coincidence?I'm sure that would be especially easy as a family friend. Maybe that would be too suspicious or hard for a mysterious caller to achieve.

---

If it was a murder motive or planned killing...

It was said Julia had no enemies. How can anyone be truly sure of that? As I mentioned Amy is a potential enemy if she had a thing for/with William while Joseph was off in another country. She might have been but there’s no evidence that I can think of. Who might have built up the kind of resentment and anger needed for such a brutal murder? I can only think of one.

Did she have a secret lover? Given her age etc. you would think not. Women that old tend to not have sexual interest... Something which could've been problematic for Wallace who was probably still young enough to want sex. Not impossible but I just don’t see sex anywhere in this case.

Both Amy and William probably have a need for sex that is likely not being fulfilled by their spouses. Take careful note of that fact because it makes an affair way more likely and if there was an affair there is motive for one of them, or both of them, to kill Julia. Perhaps to silence her if she found out, or for Amy out of jealousy/spite. That is actually the most solid motive you can piece together from the case facts and common in real life. It’s difficult to see any opportunity for an affair. William’s routine’s were pretty much clockwork. The only thing that he did without Julia was chess.

COULD Gordon Parry have any reason to want Julia dead? Was his alibi coerced by his father? Would he really be so evil as to willingly kill her to steal a few pounds? Did William trick him into placing a call and have him in mind to take the fall for it? I can’t see any of it to be honest

---

I'm thinking the #1 suspicion would be a Wallace murder with the motive of keeping his wife quiet about the affair he was having with his brother's wife after she found out. You won’t be surprised that I disagree. I just don’t think that the Wallace’s marriage was a particularly happy one. I think that resentment built up in William over the years. I think it’s possible that due to his kidney problems Wallace felt that he might not have had long left and so had a fatalistic outlook. What had he got to look forward to but nursemaiding an old woman?

#2 suspicion to be honest I'm gonna go with the housebreaker. The housebreaker was likely a local given the homes hit and the known key issue. So he may have known Wallace lived there and his work habits, but for some reason was unaware of the reclusive Julia... Or may have known Julia lived there but wanted to capitalize on the collection schedule to maximize profits and come up with a riskier plan or even plan her death. Maybe they thought if they outright planned for Julia and Wallace to go out they'd be blatant suspects - or couldn't find a way to get both of them out under the guise of being a stranger... In that case I'd say the housebreaker was most probably Mr. Johnston but there's another possibility... I’d tend to see the Housebreaker as a younger man than Johnston. I strongly feel that this murder was too brutal. It seems personal and not just a means of getting away free.

Gordon Parry is a murderer or in the housebreaker syndicate.

I think either his alibi could have been coerced and he was a very evil person who didn't mind killing Julia for money. Or he had a friend involved. But in either case the plan was legitimately to kill Julia and then steal the money after killing her. But I don't think he'd willingly plot to kill her. I think that there were to many people at the Brine’s to coerce. Also we know his movements after he left the Brine’s. Everything he did that night speaks of a man going about a normal night (unless we accept Parkes of course.)

Maybe just meant for the pal to subdue her and it went wrong. Like maybe he hit her to knock her out and she seemed to stop breathing so he battered her to ensure she couldn't speak since now it'd be attempted murder (or even murder if she became conscious, gave her testimony, then died).

If this happened then again I'd think the jacket was placed to pin suspicion on Wallace. But why beneath her in a position that it couldn’t have fallen naturally?And Parry was the type of person to be involved in a housebreaking syndicate. He easily could have conspired with the other housebreakers to go in, wack the old lady unconscious, and take the money. Quite easily actually... Ofc the sneak thief idea is complere ridiculousness.

---

Why didn't a burglar take other items? If you just killed someone you may not want to risk being in possession of items that belonged to the murdered woman. Selling those items or being caught with them would be a death sentence. Money doesn't have a trail. But he didn’t even look elsewhere for money.

So there you have it. I most suspect Wallace with a motive related to an affair, or the housebreaker who might Johnston or Parry (Parry if involved in a housebreaking syndicate, planning to attack her then steal the money).

Johnston might also be in syndicate of course (multiple streets were hit with dupe key) so same thing as with Parry in that case. Just a question but do housebreaking syndicates exist?

Good thoughts as ever WWH. There’s so much going on and most things that any of us say can have some kind of alternative explanation. I’m still as certain as I can personally be that Wallace killed Julia alone because of an unhappy marriage and a build up of resentment leading him to think of a way out of a remaining few years of misery.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Indeed the thread is rather barren which is a shame as it's a great case.

When you look at it I mean the two real probabilities are only a murder or robbery motive.

Because no sound was heard and how Julia was positioned etc. it seems very likely she did not catch a burglar so I think that can be ruled out.

So then you either have someone who went in there to murder Julia and staged the robbery, or someone who went in there to rob the home and planned to kill her in order to enable them to do that. So you either have someone with an interest in killing Julia for whatever reason, or someone who is willing to commit murder to steal money.

Another possibility is the person did not know Wallace had a wife or thought she was not there and managed to enter the home without signs of break in. There was a housebreaker in the area and if only somewhat familiar with the Wallaces may well have thought he lived alone... Of course the issue still would be where Julia was found first and foremost. Would she ever go into the parlor of her own accord? Was she planning for or already had a visitor over? Was the coat really used to protect from the cold? If this is the scenario then you have to imagine that the burglar checked around the house (or was somehow mega quiet in looting the box), was surprised to find Julia, and killed her with an unspecified blunt weapon... Would this attacker then grab the men's jacket and place it under her to frame the husband (not that this was the original plan, but a quick thinking decision)? How would he escape undetected? Did he live in one of the homes joining the back passage? Or had another place to go very close by where he was unlikely to be seen by anyone? Did he just cut through a tonne of alleys and parks?

If you can place Julia in the parlor without having admitted a guest then it's possible. Would she set up the parlor for William's return for some unknown reason?

Because bloodied assailants were not seen then it makes it most likely someone lived in a house very close by or had a getaway car ready or something of that nature (or they planned to kill her and had means of accounting for this factor). For them to be unseen it's more probably they would leave that house by the back door and get to a safe spot where they're safe from being sighted within the shortest time possible...

If Julia admitted the burglar WHO out of anyone she knows would be evil enough to plan her murder just to steal money? Was anyone particularly hard up? Why would they not invent a story to get both Wallace and his wife out of the home if they knew her? I'm sure that would be especially easy as a family friend. Maybe that would be too suspicious or hard for a mysterious caller to achieve.

---

If it was a murder motive or planned killing...

It was said Julia had no enemies. How can anyone be truly sure of that? As I mentioned Amy is a potential enemy if she had a thing for/with William while Joseph was off in another country.

Did she have a secret lover? Given her age etc. you would think not. Women that old tend to not have sexual interest... Something which could've been problematic for Wallace who was probably still young enough to want sex.

Both Amy and William probably have a need for sex that is likely not being fulfilled by their spouses. Take careful note of that fact because it makes an affair way more likely and if there was an affair there is motive for one of them, or both of them, to kill Julia. Perhaps to silence her if she found out, or for Amy out of jealousy/spite. That is actually the most solid motive you can piece together from the case facts and common in real life.

COULD Gordon Parry have any reason to want Julia dead? Was his alibi coerced by his father? Would he really be so evil as to willingly kill her to steal a few pounds? Did William trick him into placing a call and have him in mind to take the fall for it?

---

I'm thinking the #1 suspicion would be a Wallace murder with the motive of keeping his wife quiet about the affair he was having with his brother's wife after she found out.

#2 suspicion to be honest I'm gonna go with the housebreaker. The housebreaker was likely a local given the homes hit and the known key issue. So he may have known Wallace lived there and his work habits, but for some reason was unaware of the reclusive Julia... Or may have known Julia lived there but wanted to capitalize on the collection schedule to maximize profits and come up with a riskier plan or even plan her death. Maybe they thought if they outright planned for Julia and Wallace to go out they'd be blatant suspects - or couldn't find a way to get both of them out under the guise of being a stranger... In that case I'd say the housebreaker was most probably Mr. Johnston but there's another possibility...

Gordon Parry is a murderer or in the housebreaker syndicate.

I think either his alibi could have been coerced and he was a very evil person who didn't mind killing Julia for money. Or he had a friend involved. But in either case the plan was legitimately to kill Julia and then steal the money after killing her. But I don't think he'd willingly plot to kill her.

Maybe just meant for the pal to subdue her and it went wrong. Like maybe he hit her to knock her out and she seemed to stop breathing so he battered her to ensure she couldn't speak since now it'd be attempted murder (or even murder if she became conscious, gave her testimony, then died).

If this happened then again I'd think the jacket was placed to pin suspicion on Wallace. And Parry was the type of person to be involved in a housebreaking syndicate. He easily could have conspired with the other housebreakers to go in, wack the old lady unconscious, and take the money. Quite easily actually... Ofc the sneak thief idea is complere ridiculousness.

---

Why didn't a burglar take other items? If you just killed someone you may not want to risk being in possession of items that belonged to the murdered woman. Selling those items or being caught with them would be a death sentence. Money doesn't have a trail.

So there you have it. I most suspect Wallace with a motive related to an affair, or the housebreaker who might Johnston or Parry (Parry if involved in a housebreaking syndicate, planning to attack her then steal the money).

Johnston might also be in syndicate of course (multiple streets were hit with dupe key) so same thing as with Parry in that case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi WWH,

Its all been quiet in Wallace-land. To be honest I haven’t thought much about the case recently (mainly due to life and events) but I certainly haven’t lost interest. It’s certainly a pity the way that the thread faded out.

. Having spent time away I have thought about the case more.

It does appear to me that William himself probably killed his wife, and yes probably did it wearing only a mackintosh. I mean, Lizzie Borden got away with it and she killed two people, with a hatchet of all things. I think he probably removed the cat from the home on purpose and stowed it somewhere, and elements of the crime scene may well have been staged in advance, such as the removal of the cupboard door (if a burglar had yanked it off - first that serves no purpose, but also would have been noisy one would expect). The total lack of noise does seem to suggest that nobody else entered that home, and the Johnstons claimed they could hear through the walls pretty easily, and had a family member actually in the room directly adjacent to the parlor... I would say he then potentially burned some items, but the mack would not burn fully so he was forced to ditch it due to time constraints... Something along those lines.

You know that you won’t get any argument from me on the Wallace guilty and alone point but there is still much that we don’t know and probably never will. By the way, I don’t know much about the Borden Case apart from the basics but I’ve been considering buying the new book on the case called The Trial Of Lizzie Borden by Cara Robertson. She’s been researching for something like 15 years and the reviews have been really good. I might give it a go. We agree on some things and disagree on others. I, for example, don’t think that the cat played any part in this. I certainly agree on the use of the mackintosh but I also think that it might have been used as a shield rather than simply being worn. I know that you’re not keen on that idea. One thing that I did find interesting though was that in his John Bull articles Wallace himself made the suggestion of it being used as a shield. Did he know something? Was he gloating? The cupboard door just seems too random to be a part of any robbery especially when we have to consider the complete lack of evidence of any search for cash or valuables. And as you say there’s the issue of noise (especially if Julia was in the Parlour whilst Qualtrough had excused himself to use the bathroom. I think that the burning of the Mac was accidental and that the singe marks on Julia’s skirt point to them occurring at the same time and for the same reason.

.
I have been thinking also about an outside possibility, that William is innocent and AMY is guilty. Like I'm picturing a scenario where Amy is in love with Wallace but he loves Julia and won't leave her (or he cut off an affair with Amy, or wouldn't be unfaithful? I don't know, but everyone knows they were weirdly tight)... People ask "how did the perpetrator even know Wallace would be going on that trip?", well Amy visited that day, and extracted that information from Julia, so she could be certain that William was going on that trip that night.

An interesting though. Not only did Amy know that Julia was going to be alone in the house but she knew that Julia would have let her in. We have no evidence of an affair though. There’s the issue of the phone call of course. If there’s anything that I feel certain of in this case it’s that the person that made the call was involved in Julia’s murder in some way.

.
That brings us back to that weird "umbrella man" suspect who was dropped off in Sefton Park, within walking distance of Amy's pad, considering a male voice was heard by Beattie.

I get worried when I hear “umbrella man” for obvious reasons.

.
I do maintain that the Johnstons proveably lied on a couple of occasions and they should be looked into. The only thing is, if the Johnstons and Wallace were in some scheme, then they surely would have removed the mackintosh from the scene, unless it served some sort of purpose. But it seems to do nothing but incriminate Wallace and nothing else... Unless only Mr Johnston was involved, and Mrs Johnston kept in the dark. I still fail to believe he didn't know her name. But also the lies in the reports he gave to the newspapers. Just sayin'...

I’m unsure about lying to be honest. There are certainly inconsistencies. Your point about the mackintosh is a good one. I don’t think that the Johnston’s were involved but it’s worthwhile looking at all angles of course.

.
It could also be a chess club member, but we don't have access to the information we need really... Like how frequently Amy actually visited the Wallace's home (while Wallace was out at work), whether there WAS anyone at chess who could've done this - his opponent turned up late, right?

The main issue that I have with a stranger is that this seems like a deliberate murder to me. By someone that wanted Julia dead. This doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have been someone that hasn’t been mentioned yet of course. We can’t say that this would be impossible but we have nothing to work with.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Having spent time away I have thought about the case more.

It does appear to me that William himself probably killed his wife, and yes probably did it wearing only a mackintosh. I mean, Lizzie Borden got away with it and she killed two people, with a hatchet of all things. I think he probably removed the cat from the home on purpose and stowed it somewhere, and elements of the crime scene may well have been staged in advance, such as the removal of the cupboard door (if a burglar had yanked it off - first that serves no purpose, but also would have been noisy one would expect). The total lack of noise does seem to suggest that nobody else entered that home, and the Johnstons claimed they could hear through the walls pretty easily, and had a family member actually in the room directly adjacent to the parlor... I would say he then potentially burned some items, but the mack would not burn fully so he was forced to ditch it due to time constraints... Something along those lines.

I have been thinking also about an outside possibility, that William is innocent and AMY is guilty. Like I'm picturing a scenario where Amy is in love with Wallace but he loves Julia and won't leave her (or he cut off an affair with Amy, or wouldn't be unfaithful? I don't know, but everyone knows they were weirdly tight)... People ask "how did the perpetrator even know Wallace would be going on that trip?", well Amy visited that day, and extracted that information from Julia, so she could be certain that William was going on that trip that night.

That brings us back to that weird "umbrella man" suspect who was dropped off in Sefton Park, within walking distance of Amy's pad, considering a male voice was heard by Beattie.

I do maintain that the Johnstons proveably lied on a couple of occasions and they should be looked into. The only thing is, if the Johnstons and Wallace were in some scheme, then they surely would have removed the mackintosh from the scene, unless it served some sort of purpose. But it seems to do nothing but incriminate Wallace and nothing else... Unless only Mr Johnston was involved, and Mrs Johnston kept in the dark. I still fail to believe he didn't know her name. But also the lies in the reports he gave to the newspapers. Just sayin'...

It could also be a chess club member, but we don't have access to the information we need really... Like how frequently Amy actually visited the Wallace's home (while Wallace was out at work), whether there WAS anyone at chess who could've done this - his opponent turned up late, right?