Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

a) I'm not sure why Wallace would be getting dressed in the parlour. His request to bring the mackintosh there might have seemed unusual. Since he was presumably clothed when Julia brought it to him, then he performed miracles in removing all signs of blood in such a short time.

There does not seem to have been much of a confrontation between Julia and her attacker. She was judged to have been struck from behind with no defensive injuries so far as I can recall.

b)So the murderer would have polished off Mr. Johnston as well had the neighbour been alerted to the attack? Or even a late delivery boy?

c) Parry's knowledge of Close, whose death during the war would have been officially published, is less suspicious given the circumstances.

a) a confrontation can be verbal. Or even a look. It was a defence theory that she had been struck from behind. The evidence and MacFall both suggested a frontal assault initially.
b) I don't know, as it didn't arise. The killer though it might though.
c) quite possibly, but still, why would anyone remember the name 9 years later? Also, Goodman states Parry was aware of the deaths of Crewe (1947) and Wallace's nephew (1960, in Borneo) when he challenged him in 1966.

[cobalt]

I’m still struggling to grasp why an attack happened in the parlour. Surely Qualtrough would have tried to steal in the kitchen, and would hardly be invited into the parlour by Julia to discuss the error of his ways. Parry, assuming his alibi is suspect, may have been attempting to borrow money from Julia I suppose, and lashed out when refused. But why not go round the previous night to make the request instead of going to all the Qualtrough trouble?

The retention of the murder weapon is equally a problem. To ward off being confronted? Confronted by whom- old Johnston next door or the sickly Wallace? A fist or a kick would have sufficed, I think. Far better to give the weapon a cursory wipe where it had been handled, and scarper.

For a man merely at the fringes of the 1931 murder, Parry does seem to have taken an unusual interest in some of the witnesses over the years.

[RodCrosby]

There's no point in saying "surely" when the alternative is perfectly possible..

I highlighted a case from just two years ago where a killer (on Merseyside no less) used a weapon from inside the house, took it away, and it was disposed of by a friend...

The attack happened in the parlour because Julia didn't notice the coins until Qualtrough had returned to the parlour.

The burglary had to happen on the Tuesday for reasons already discussed. The phone-call was designed to get Wallace out AND get Qualtrough in. Julia had to hear about it first, of course....

[Abby Normal]

re Wallace having an accomplice(who killed Julia)-don't see it.


no need for the whole Q call/MGE nonsense-just do it when hes at the chess club.

[RodCrosby]

correct, Abby

but, as an aside, murder-for-hire was practically unknown in the UK in 1931. The death penalty, if nothing else, seems to have suppressed that type of crime.
And Wallace seems to be the last type to know where to find a willing killer in any case. The Chess Club? The Bowls Club?

[cobalt]

There's no point in saying "surely" when the alternative is perfectly possible

Since you seem to agree with me that Qulatrough would have been stealing money from the kitchen, I was quite justified in using the word ‘surely.’ He was not stealing a piano from the parlour.

So Qualtrough enters under a false pretext and Julia rumbles him in some way. (Was the cupboard door damaged after the attack?) She confronts him in the parlour (after she has lit the fire?) where, according to medical judgment she was sitting down or kneeling. This is an unusual position from which to confront a person. Before launching his attack, this person has the presence of mind to snatch a mackintosh from the hall since presumably Julia, if she wore it to answer the door, has since hung it back up. He then blunders around upstairs for a bit, since he was told there was around £100 in the house and so far he is £96 down on expectation. He has little success in his efforts, so turns out the lights and vanishes into the night with his bloodstained face, hands and clothing which he opted not to wash off in the sink or bath upstairs.

Correct me on any assumptions that are wrong with this scenario. It is probably better than most others. However a conman or burglar who had been rumbled had the option of pushing his way out of the house, with his £4 and his anonymity intact. Surely (and I will use this word again) this was a better option than deciding to launch a sustained attack on Julia, crossing the chasm that separates burglary from murder, all for money that the attacker must have been by now suspecting did not exist in the house.

[Herlock Sholmes]

re Wallace having an accomplice(who killed Julia)-don't see it.


no need for the whole Q call/MGE nonsense-just do it when hes at the chess club.

Abby, the difference was that by having the call Wallace could indicate that someone had deliberately got him out of the house.

Going out at someone else’s request might have made people think “well what are the chances of someone having a business meeting planned and then deciding to kill his wife before he left?” By killing Julia before he went to chess would make it more plausible that Wallace was planning it all along.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. b) having killed, he knew he might have to kill again, if he found someone blocking his escape from the house

Why should the accomplice’s suspicion that he might bump into someone that he might have to kill increase after the murder? If he hadn’t have killed Julia would he have still picked up a weapon in case he had to fight his way past someone?

Makes no sense at all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cobalt:

. Correct me on any assumptions that are wrong with this scenario. It is probably better than most others. However a conman or burglar who had been rumbled had the option of pushing his way out of the house, with his £4 and his anonymity intact. Surely (and I will use this word again) this was a better option than deciding to launch a sustained attack on Julia, crossing the chasm that separates burglary from murder, all for money that the attacker must have been by now suspecting did not exist in the house

It does seem like overkill doesn’t it. Especially when the accomplice would have carried out the burglary fully prepared for the fact that, if caught, Julia would have been able to identify him. The neighbours heard no screams from Julia.

[etenguy]

Cobalt:


It does seem like overkill doesn’t it. Especially when the accomplice would have carried out the burglary fully prepared for the fact that, if caught, Julia would have been able to identify him. The neighbours heard no screams from Julia.

I agree with Cobalt and Herlock - the evidence suggests Julia was caught by surprise in the parlour either when lighting the gas fire or while sitting in the armchair, leaning slightly forward. It is difficult to envisage how this can be connected to a sneak thief burglary in the kitchen. In addition the whole burglary set up in the house does not seem credible. I can reach no conclusion other than the intent of the crime was the murder of Julia. Whether that be Wallace (no known motive) or Parry (+1) (no known motive).

Just as the Qualtrough call is central to understanding who was involved, so too is the purpose of the crime (robbery / murder / something else). All the evidence suggests to me that was to murder Julia Wallace. I am not convinced that robbery was the intended crime - maybe that is the next element of this case we dissect.

[Abby Normal]

Abby, the difference was that by having the call Wallace could indicate that someone had deliberately got him out of the house.

Going out at someone else’s request might have made people think “well what are the chances of someone having a business meeting planned and then deciding to kill his wife before he left?” By killing Julia before he went to chess would make it more plausible that Wallace was planning it all along.

I was assuming the accomplice would be the one who actually murdered her.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another important point for me Eten is the suggestion that Julia had the mackintosh around her shoulders (explaining its presence in the Parlour.) Can anyone construct a believable set of circumstances where someone with a coat over their shoulders against the cold gets struck on the head, then falls to the floor landing on her front and the coat ends up bunched up underneath her? Completely impossible of course if it’s suggested that she actually had the coat on. Even if she was carrying the coat we would surely expect her to have dropped it? I can think of no believable scenario where the mackintosh ends up where it did involving a stranger killer. I can think of a reason why Wallace might have deliberately put it there though.

We might also ask again why she would wear William’s coat when her own would have been found in the same place? A mackintosh is designed against rain not cold. Her own coat would probably have been thicker and warmer too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was assuming the accomplice would be the one who actually murdered her.

Sorry Abby.

You were talking about an accomplice for Wallace.

I misunderstood you.

[Abby Normal]

I agree with Cobalt and Herlock - the evidence suggests Julia was caught by surprise in the parlour either when lighting the gas fire or while sitting in the armchair, leaning slightly forward. It is difficult to envisage how this can be connected to a sneak thief burglary in the kitchen. In addition the whole burglary set up in the house does not seem credible. I can reach no conclusion other than the intent of the crime was the murder of Julia. Whether that be Wallace (no known motive) or Parry (+1) (no known motive).

Just as the Qualtrough call is central to understanding who was involved, so too is the purpose of the crime (robbery / murder / something else). All the evidence suggests to me that was to murder Julia Wallace. I am not convinced that robbery was the intended crime - maybe that is the next element of this case we dissect.

it was either a robbery gone wrong or the murder of Julia perfect crime

[cobalt]

AS,

I think you are placing too much analysis on the position of the mackintosh. I have no idea why you think Wallace, as murderer, thought it so important as to place it beneath her. He could have skadalleded with the mackintosh along with the murder weapon, the bloodstained clothing, and his other paraphernalia while on his odyssey to Menlove Gardens. And dumped them, as was his wont, beyond human scrutiny for 80 years. That was quite some achievement from the man from the Pru.

But I agree up to a point. The details we have, point to a murderous attack, not a murder committed in the course of a burglary. She was not coshed. She was bludgeoned to death. Why, if this was a burglary?