Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[cobalt]

Before Rod comes in, no doubt with some pertinent points, I think it is undeniable that the evidence against Parry is no more convincing than the evidence against Wallace.

Less so in fact, since we can be certain that Wallace was actually in the house close to the time Julia died and as a husband had a motive recognised throughout human history, however indistinct.

BTW, I think Wallace was innocent and had a terrible wrong done to him. But I am interested in analysis and evaluation of evidence, not mere information.

[etenguy]

Before Rod comes in, no doubt with some pertinent points, I think it is undeniable that the evidence against Parry is no more convincing than the evidence against Wallace.

Less so in fact, since we can be certain that Wallace was actually in the house close to the time Julia died and as a husband had a motive recognised throughout human history, however indistinct.

BTW, I think Wallace was innocent and had a terrible wrong done to him. But I am interested in analysis and evaluation of evidence, not mere information.

The importance of understanding the intent of the crime is that if it is able to be established from the evidence we have, it identifies the culprit in so much as if robbery were the intent, then Parry (+1) is the culprit since Wallace knew there was little to steal. If murder were the intent, then Wallace is the culprit since Parry (or anyone else who might be considered) would have arranged for it to occur on the night of the chess match. Only Wallace needed to use the Qualtrough call in order to establish an alibi.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cobalt, the questions that have been asked for the last 90 years are why was the mackintosh in the Parlour and how did it end up bunched up beneath Julia. A plausible explaination for these two questions could point us in the right direction.

For me everything points to the fact that it was put there deliberately. How could Julia, with it over her shoulders, fall onto her front and get the coat underneath her? If she was holding it she would surely have just dropped it or got it at best partially beneath her. These explanations don’t work.

So we can then ask - would the accomplice have put it there on purpose? For what conceivable reason?

Finally, would Wallace have a reason for doing so. I think yes. If, as I believe, he used the coat as protection against blood spatter, he would have been concerned that the police having seen the blood spatter might have suspected how the coat had been used. He therefore pushes it under Julia’s body where a pool of blood is gathering. By bunching it up it would also serve to smudge and smear the effects of the spatter.

And so, if the mackintosh got there unintentially, there’s no logical explanation for how. If it was put there intentionally only Wallace would have had a possible reason for doing so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

O

Before Rod comes in, no doubt with some pertinent points, I think it is undeniable that the evidence against Parry is no more convincing than the evidence against Wallace.

Less so in fact, since we can be certain that Wallace was actually in the house close to the time Julia died and as a husband had a motive recognised throughout human history, however indistinct.

BTW, I think Wallace was innocent and had a terrible wrong done to him. But I am interested in analysis and evaluation of evidence, not mere information.

If you think that the evidence for Wallace’s guilt is stronger that Parry’s but you feel Wallace innocent, do you support a different theory. No problem at all if you do Cobalt I’m just interested in if you favour any scenario/theory?

As you know, I think the opposite. I believe that Wallace got away with murder.

[etenguy]

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.

There is no satisfactory explanation for the mackintosh being where it was except that the killer put it there. You have suggested one plausible reason Wallace might have put it there. I don't know why the accomplice would have put it there, but others might have a suggestion.

[Abby Normal]

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?

Hi cobalt
Many a burglary gone wrong has ended up in a brutal overkill murder.

[Abby Normal]

Cobalt, the questions that have been asked for the last 90 years are why was the mackintosh in the Parlour and how did it end up bunched up beneath Julia. A plausible explaination for these two questions could point us in the right direction.

For me everything points to the fact that it was put there deliberately. How could Julia, with it over her shoulders, fall onto her front and get the coat underneath her? If she was holding it she would surely have just dropped it or got it at best partially beneath her. These explanations don’t work.

So we can then ask - would the accomplice have put it there on purpose? For what conceivable reason?

Finally, would Wallace have a reason for doing so. I think yes. If, as I believe, he used the coat as protection against blood spatter, he would have been concerned that the police having seen the blood spatter might have suspected how the coat had been used. He therefore pushes it under Julia’s body where a pool of blood is gathering. By bunching it up it would also serve to smudge and smear the effects of the spatter.

And so, if the mackintosh got there unintentially, there’s no logical explanation for how. If it was put there intentionally only Wallace would have had a possible reason for doing so.

Hi hs
How do you account for it being burned if wallace used it to shield blood splatter?
I can think of several scenarios but want to see what you think.

[cobalt]

HS,

As you can appreciate I am pretty much in the Rod Crosby camp. However his unpleasant manner on this forum has perhaps inspired me to see other aspects of the evidence. That said, I - and others- are perhaps doing him a favour by testing what he believes is a cast iron scenario, by identifying weaknesses in his case. If his is a robust case it, unlike him, will welcome robust scrutiny. Einstein, a man of considerable intellect almost on a par with Rod Crosby, always welcomed challenges to his theories, which is maybe why they have stood the test of time for the best part of a century. Maybe Rod’s theories will as well.

In short, Wallace’s guilt dissolves on the evidence of the milkboy. The timing is too improbable. Not impossible I accept, but beyond what most of us would accept, especially for a planned murder. No time. No bloodstains. No unusual behaviour. I have said earlier that if there had been no Qualtrough phone call then I could more easily buy into the modern, anti-Victorian mindset by which Wallace was a repressed man who lashed at his wife in a moment of madness. That, to our self-satisfied culture, has a certain logic to it; and the attack was frenzied enough. Except that the phone call suggests premeditation and a less bloody method of execution. And that is before we consider the character of Wallace himself. The murder plan was cold and calculated, yet the execution was frenzied. This is hard to take in.

Wallace’s guilt was assumed by the police, partly due lack of evidence, so they resorted to the familiar trope of husband or person who discovers the body. Wallace was both, so he was the obvious target. It’s a weak case and was rightly dismissed. The problem I have is with anyone suggesting another killer, which from what I have read so far strikes me as equally unlikely.

[cobalt]

Many a burglary gone wrong has ended up in a brutal overkill murder

In what context though? They are all as different as fingerprints. In the UK most murders in the pursuance of theft, which was a capital crime from around 1957-1964, were the result of a young man, inebriated and in the course of burglary, striking an older person with a weapon. However they did not normally do this eleven times.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi hs
How do you account for it being burned if wallace used it to shield blood splatter?
I can think of several scenarios but want to see what you think.

Hi Abby,

I tend toward it either getting burned just after Julia handed it to him and he bent down to pick up the bar with part of the coat hanging in the fire or that he struck the first blow whilst Julia was still holding it and she fell against the grate singeing both the coat and her skirt

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=cobalt;469068]Many a burglary gone wrong has ended up in a brutal overkill murder

In what context though? They are all as different as fingerprints. In the UK most murders in the pursuance of theft, which was a capital crime from around 1957-1964, were the result of a young man, inebriated and in the course of burglary, striking an older person with a weapon. However they did not normally do this eleven times.[/QUOTE

Surely if you are in the parry/accomplice camp, you can see how parry got some dumb thug to do the dirty work who panicked and commited overkill murder to make sure the witness was dead, no??

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I tend toward it either getting burned just after Julia handed it to him and he bent down to pick up the bar with part of the coat hanging in the fire or that he struck the first blow whilst Julia was still holding it and she fell against the grate singeing both the coat and her skirt

Meh. How about hes already wearing it strikes the first blows she falls against the grate and he singes the mac pulling her out??

[etenguy]

Hi Abby,

I tend toward it either getting burned just after Julia handed it to him and he bent down to pick up the bar with part of the coat hanging in the fire or that he struck the first blow whilst Julia was still holding it and she fell against the grate singeing both the coat and her skirt

Hi Herlock

Macfall's evidence has Julia just getting up from lighting the gas fire when she is attacked or leaning forward while sitting in the armchair. It is not likely she was holding the mackintosh while lighting the fire. Possibly she may have had it on her lap while sitting in the armchair - but it is not easy to think why she would be there with the mackintosh on her lap if she was in the room with Wallace. Its my bias, but I think the mackintosh and skirt burning happened as one event.

If you are correct about the killer being Wallace and he was using the coat as a shield in the way you previously described, do you think it is possible it got caught under Julia as she fell trapping it against the fire, with her skirt getting singed and the mackintosh getting burnt at the same time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS,

As you can appreciate I am pretty much in the Rod Crosby camp. However his unpleasant manner on this forum has perhaps inspired me to see other aspects of the evidence. That said, I - and others- are perhaps doing him a favour by testing what he believes is a cast iron scenario, by identifying weaknesses in his case. If his is a robust case it, unlike him, will welcome robust scrutiny. Einstein, a man of considerable intellect almost on a par with Rod Crosby, always welcomed challenges to his theories, which is maybe why they have stood the test of time for the best part of a century. Maybe Rod’s theories will as well.

In short, Wallace’s guilt dissolves on the evidence of the milkboy. The timing is too improbable. Not impossible I accept, but beyond what most of us would accept, especially for a planned murder. No time. No bloodstains. No unusual behaviour. I have said earlier that if there had been no Qualtrough phone call then I could more easily buy into the modern, anti-Victorian mindset by which Wallace was a repressed man who lashed at his wife in a moment of madness. That, to our self-satisfied culture, has a certain logic to it; and the attack was frenzied enough. Except that the phone call suggests premeditation and a less bloody method of execution. And that is before we consider the character of Wallace himself. The murder plan was cold and calculated, yet the execution was frenzied. This is hard to take in.

Wallace’s guilt was assumed by the police, partly due lack of evidence, so they resorted to the familiar trope of husband or person who discovers the body. Wallace was both, so he was the obvious target. It’s a weak case and was rightly dismissed. The problem I have is with anyone suggesting another killer, which from what I have read so far strikes me as equally unlikely.

Cobalt,

I believe that not only did Wallace have enough time to do what he needed to do I believe that he had time to spare.

If Close left at 6.40 (and in a scenario that Antony was going through with me we have him leaving at 6.37) Wallace has a ten minutes. I believe that when Julia closed the door on Close Wallace could easily have been leaving by the back door 6 or 7 minutes later.

I think that people tend to see Wallace acting as if he was underwater.

Wallace empties the cash box before the murder. He could easily have pulled off the cupboard door too. That’s the staging done. Although he had time to do these things after Julia was dead.

Julia closes the door, Wallace calls to Julia from the Parlour to bring him his mackintosh. He knocks Julia down with one blow, puts a pair of gloves and the mackintosh and finishes the job. He pushes the mackintosh underneath Julia’s body.2 minutes tops.

He then wraps the weapon in some paper then puts on his coat, turns down the gaslights and leaves. The actual, physical actions wouldn’t have taken long.

If we assume a man planned a robbery and knew that there were time constraints then it’s reasonable to assume that he would have made at least some provision for not getting blood on him. It’s only if we assume that Wallace got covered in blood that timings get tight. It’s also not unthinkable that Wallace might also have had a little good fortune, in not getting blood on his face for example.

You mention no unusual behaviour. Even though none of us would say that Wallace’s rather cold, unemotional demeanour is enough to brand him guilty many would still say that it was slightly unusual. The way that he almost scientifically examined her for example. His behaviour when searching for MGE is considered strange by many and I think reasonably so. The fact that Wallace lied to Beattie and Caird. The way he didn’t mention Crewe straight away. The door that refused to let him in for the first time ever on that particular night then opened when the Johnston’s appeared. The fact that Wallace, supposedly worried for his wife’s safety, walks past a door of a room within touching distance and proceeds to check his laboratory (surely the least likely room in the house to expect Julia to be in.)

The calculating plan hardly speaks of Parry whose previous crimes amounted to lifting money from an insurance round and hoping that no one would notice.

Yes the murder was brutal. But that speaks more of a more personal motive. If Wallace made a plan to kill his wife, after a build up of resentment and growing ill-feeling, he might have intended only one or two blows. More might have been required and then any hatred could have come flooding out resulting as it did.

A sneak-thief, accepting the risk of possible identification from the outset, would surely have been more likely to have just left if discovered?

Parry’s actions on the Tuesday night just don’t speak of a man taking part in a plan.

We can also add things like - why would a sneak thief bother turning off the lights in a strange house? We can come up with a reasonable reason for Wallace doing it though.

I can’t see any evidence for Parry’s involvement. Parkes testimony is not believable in my opinion.

I agree that I wouldn’t send Wallace to the gallows on the available evidence. But out of the available suspects/theories I’d go for Wallace 90% (I’ve said 95% in the past)

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;469070]

Many a burglary gone wrong has ended up in a brutal overkill murder

In what context though? They are all as different as fingerprints. In the UK most murders in the pursuance of theft, which was a capital crime from around 1957-1964, were the result of a young man, inebriated and in the course of burglary, striking an older person with a weapon. However they did not normally do this eleven times.[/QUOTE

Surely if you are in the parry/accomplice camp, you can see how parry got some dumb thug to do the dirty work who panicked and commited overkill murder to make sure the witness was dead, no??

‘Dumb’ is the correct word Abby because it’s worth mentioning again how lucky Parry must have been to find himself an accomplice willing to take 100% of the risks whilst Parry sat in complete safety drinking tea at the Brine’s house.

A very obliging chap our accomplice.