Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[ColdCaseJury]

I certainly feel no animosity Antony and would be surprised if you felt that I did. No, I meant generally in the context of the two threads where debate has become heated and personal. I just wanted you to know that if we disagree it does not mean I disrespect you or your views. Sorry, if it came across as otherwise.

I don’t feel that I’m deliberately trying to give anyone any breaks even though for the last year we’ve had one poster intransigently refusing to admit that anything Wallace did might be seen as possibly suspicious or troubling and who would go to any ridiculous length to provide excuses.

I accept, because it’s a fact, that the alibi that Parry provided for the Monday night was untrue. People do give false alibi’s to try cover their tracks and we can’t say for certain that Parry wasn’t doing this. We can watch true crime tv shows any night of the week that show this. But these false alibi’s are pretty much always exposed by unforeseen things. CCTV footage which show the criminal to have been near the seen of the crime; a shop receipt in the wallet which shows the criminal was in the area at the time; a sighting by a third party for examples.

Now we know that Parry was no genius but he wasn’t a complete idiot. The word ‘crafty’ might even be used in regard to him. This is why I find it a little difficult to understand or even believe why he would have given such an easily disprovable alibi. He would have known that this alibi would have been checked by the police. Parry’s girlfriend Lily and her mother were interviewed by the police two days after him so if he’d given a knowingly false alibi why didn’t he go and see them to confirm that they’d back up his story (unless he believed that he was telling the truth and that they would do so?) Why then, if he discovered that they wouldn’t be backing him up, did he not ask them to cover for him? Maybe he did and they refused? But this would seem to have caused no discord as they stayed together at least for the near future. We could also ask, if Parry planned this crime why didn’t he arrange for the accomplice to provide him with a false alibi as the police weren’t considering a two man job.

And as you say Parry arrived at the Lloyd’s at 5.30 most days so we might also say that he just assumed that that’s what he did on the Monday. As you know I don’t believe that Parry playedany part in this crime whatsoever and so when something like the Monday alibi comes up, whilst I can’t deny the reality of what happened, I have to ask myself if there could have been a reasonable explaination and I think that, without any leaps of faith, that there could have been.

It's the conjunction, HS. Parry misleads & His misdirection covers for when he might be at the call box & He's perfectly lucid about his whereabouts on the Tuesday & The Lloyds can remember where he had been on the Monday. I think your point about the cover by accomplice is a good one, but would have the unfortunate side effect of introducing the accomplice to police.

Of course I accept you don't think Parry played any part in the crime but - and I don't think I'm being uncharitable here - that appears the premise from which you conclude there must be some other explanation for Parry's lie. It is similar to Moore hearing that Close called at 6:45pm and, being convinced Wallace was guilty, concluded that Close was mistaken about the time. Both are valid arguments, but I find both lack cogency.

Now this does not mean your necessarily wrong, of course. And it may be that I have a blind spot on this issue, rather than you, but this is the root of why we come to different conclusions. I think this evidence, plus others I have not come to yet, make it more likely than not that Parry was in the call box.

[cobalt]

HS,

I am working through the crude Americanisms of Wallacewhackedher, exhibiting less than a neutral approach give his name for all his purported open mindedness. He is credulous about phone ownership circa 1931, totally bereft of the distinctions between British and American culture, and equally a prisoner of his own post-Kennedy voyeurism on any matters salacious. Most worryingly of all, he has not the slightest sense of self-awareness in these matters. His interest and enthusiasm are welcomed by me. His crass observations are tiresome.



You yourself are all over the place on the back door, but have not addressed my initial point: that a planned murder by Wallace would have claimed the back door was open. You are being dazzled by the appearance of the Johnsons which may be significant in another way. Leave out the Johnsons and what does Wallace have as an alibi? His key excuse withers into nothing, yet all other parts of the crime were exemplary. There is a problem here. Why was his entry to the crime scene so poorly planned, if as you believe he was guilty.



You have not addressed the point I made about a possible burglar, intruder, murderer, being armed with a torch. These are called flashlights in the USA, for WWH benefit, and were readily available in the UK by 1931. In fact we invented them. You have ignored the possibility that the murderer was in possession of a torch, and are focusing on a Victorian gas lamp interpretation of the crime, which suits our modern, limited understanding of the period. Burglars had torches in 1931. Battery operated and reasonably reliable. You are still caught in some late Edwardian fiddling with gas lamps scenario, which perhaps Wallace was, but not an up-to date-burglar. You are out of time, as Chris Farlow once sang.



Are you part of the sitting-on-the- fence accomplice theory? If you cannot come to a conclusive theory do not dilute your suspects. The longer the suspect list, the weaker the case. All these collaborator theories and accomplice are dustbin fodder, fuel for adolescent and excited contributors. Talks of ‘hits’and ‘contracts’ and gay marriages is risible.



I never suggested that there was ever a knock at the door. The culprit was more likely a burglar, not a conman. He entered the house without her knowledge.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's the conjunction, HS. Parry misleads & His misdirection covers for when he might be at the call box & He's perfectly lucid about his whereabouts on the Tuesday & The Lloyds can remember where he had been on the Monday. I think your point about the cover by accomplice is a good one, but would have the unfortunate side effect of introducing the accomplice to police.

Of course I accept you don't think Parry played any part in the crime but - and I don't think I'm being uncharitable here - that appears the premise from which you conclude there must be some other explanation for Parry's lie. It is similar to Moore hearing that Close called at 6:45pm and, being convinced Wallace was guilty, concluded that Close was mistaken about the time. Both are valid arguments, but I find both lack cogency.

Now this does not mean your necessarily wrong, of course. And it may be that I have a blind spot on this issue, rather than you, but this is the root of why we come to different conclusions. I think this evidence, plus others I have not come to yet, make it more likely than not that Parry was in the call box.

I can understand the point of view that I’ve emboldened and there’s certainly some truth in that but I can recall thinking when I first read about the case, and before I came to favour a guilty Wallace, “Why would Parry have give an alibi which he must have known would be disproven; and very easily and quickly?” It’s not even as if it’s a kind of “well I might get away with it” excuse. Even if he’d have said “I was just driving around at the time” it wouldn’t have tied him to the call box; it would have just meant that he couldn’t prove that he was elsewhere. By giving Lily Lloyd as his alibi he was just making himself look about as suspicious as possible.

[etenguy]

I never suggested that there was ever a knock at the door. The culprit was more likely a burglar, not a conman. He entered the house without her knowledge.[/SIZE]

One slight weakness with this theory is that the culprit appears not to have stolen much. About four pounds was missing from the cash-box (less the coins found on the hearth) but nothing else of value taken, despite money and Julia's handbag being in full view. Not a very proficient burglar.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS,

I am working through the crude Americanisms of Wallacewhackedher, exhibiting less than a neutral approach give his name for all his purported open mindedness. He is credulous about phone ownership circa 1931, totally bereft of the distinctions between British and American culture, and equally a prisoner of his own post-Kennedy voyeurism on any matters salacious. Most worryingly of all, he has not the slightest sense of self-awareness in these matters. His interest and enthusiasm are welcomed by me. His crass observations are tiresome.

I really don’t understand the need for the insults. WWH has gained a fair bit of knowledge on the case over a short space of time and different viewpoints should never be ignored but weighed up. And i think you’ll find that he is from the U.K.



You yourself are all over the place on the back door, but have not addressed my initial point: that a planned murder by Wallace would have claimed the back door was open. You are being dazzled by the appearance of the Johnsons which may be significant in another way. Leave out the Johnsons and what does Wallace have as an alibi? His key excuse withers into nothing, yet all other parts of the crime were exemplary. There is a problem here. Why was his entry to the crime scene so poorly planned, if as you believe he was guilty.

I’d certainly be interested how you can claim to know what Wallace, or anyone else, would have done in planning that crime. Wallace, in my opinion, was trying to give the impression that there was someone still in the house. He had to admit this in court when he was trying to distance himself from it. So why would he need to claim the back door was open? I believe that if the Johnston’s hadn’t turned up unexpectedly when they did, he could have claimed that the killer had escaped via the back door whilst he was at the front. We also only have Wallace’s word that the front door was bolted. I have to stress again, and I’m not someone who won’t admit to coincidences, but in all the time that Wallace had lived in that house he’d NEVER ONCE been unable to get in. Only on this particular night when his wife lay bludgeoned to death in the Parlour.



You have not addressed the point I made about a possible burglar, intruder, murderer, being armed with a torch. These are called flashlights in the USA, for WWH benefit, and were readily available in the UK by 1931. In fact we invented them. You have ignored the possibility that the murderer was in possession of a torch, and are focusing on a Victorian gas lamp interpretation of the crime, which suits our modern, limited understanding of the period. Burglars had torches in 1931. Battery operated and reasonably reliable. You are still caught in some late Edwardian fiddling with gas lamps scenario, which perhaps Wallace was, but not an up-to date-burglar. You are out of time, as Chris Farlow once sang.

You surely aren’t suggesting that the killer turned off the lights and then used a torch?! If you are suggesting that Julia turned off the lights is it believable that a timid and retiring woman like Julia, alone in the house at night, would sit in the dark? As there was absolutely no evidence of forced entry then we have to assume that either a) the killer was already in the house-Wallace or b) Julia let the killer into the house - the Accomplice. If b) and the killer talked his way in as part of a plan why would he bring a torch?



Are you part of the sitting-on-the- fence accomplice theory? If you cannot come to a conclusive theory do not dilute your suspects. The longer the suspect list, the weaker the case. All these collaborator theories and accomplice are dustbin fodder, fuel for adolescent and excited contributors. Talks of ‘hits’and ‘contracts’ and gay marriages is risible.

Why is one Accomplice theory more acceptable than another? If something isn’t impossible then why not discus it. I wrote that piece as an exercise. Postulating an accomplice doesn’t equal case solved. I was attempting to show that a collaberator theory is not much less likely than an accomplice theory.

I’m certainly not on the fence as I’m sure everyone can see by now. I believe that William Wallace is overwhelmingly the likeliest killer and I honestly can’t understand why everyone doesn’t feel the same. That said, I certainly wouldn’t have convicted Wallace on the available evidence. I believe that Richard Gordon Parry can safely be eliminated as the killer. And I don’t believe that he was involved in any way with this crime. I certainly think people get carried away with the idea of ‘kindly old silver haired Wallace compared with the slimy petty criminal Parry. We love a miscarriage of justice. I think that Wallace got away with murder. I hope that’s ‘off the fence’ enough.



I never suggested that there was ever a knock at the door. The culprit was more likely a burglar, not a conman. He entered the house without her knowledge.

How? There was no evidence of a break-in. Surely you don’t think that Julia left a door open? I’d say that a burglar is the least likely scenario apart from the prank call nonsense of course. A burglar wouldn’t have put the cash box back for a start. Wouldn’t he have made a more thorough search for cash and valuables?

All that said, I could be wrong of course. We all could.

[etenguy]

I can understand the point of view that I’ve emboldened and there’s certainly some truth in that but I can recall thinking when I first read about the case, and before I came to favour a guilty Wallace, “Why would Parry have give an alibi which he must have known would be disproven; and very easily and quickly?” It’s not even as if it’s a kind of “well I might get away with it” excuse. Even if he’d have said “I was just driving around at the time” it wouldn’t have tied him to the call box; it would have just meant that he couldn’t prove that he was elsewhere. By giving Lily Lloyd as his alibi he was just making himself look about as suspicious as possible.

Didn't Lily Lloyd confirm Parry's alibi at the time but retract this some years later. If my memory is correct, we don't know who was lying and who was telling the truth.

In case I misremembered, or we nevertheless consider it much more likely that Parry was lying, this would allow Parry the time to make the call. If he did make the call, then the reason for lying is obvious. If he did not make the call, he may have lied because he was up to no good somwhere else. But even if his actions that night were perfectly innocent, he probably just wanted to distance himself from the crime. Not a great lie, but then CCJ has already demonstrated Parry's penchant for lying.

[RMQualtrough]

HS,

I am working through the crude Americanisms of Wallacewhackedher, exhibiting less than a neutral approach give his name for all his purported open mindedness. He is credulous about phone ownership circa 1931, totally bereft of the distinctions between British and American culture, and equally a prisoner of his own post-Kennedy voyeurism on any matters salacious. Most worryingly of all, he has not the slightest sense of self-awareness in these matters. His interest and enthusiasm are welcomed by me. His crass observations are tiresome.



You yourself are all over the place on the back door, but have not addressed my initial point: that a planned murder by Wallace would have claimed the back door was open. You are being dazzled by the appearance of the Johnsons which may be significant in another way. Leave out the Johnsons and what does Wallace have as an alibi? His key excuse withers into nothing, yet all other parts of the crime were exemplary. There is a problem here. Why was his entry to the crime scene so poorly planned, if as you believe he was guilty.



You have not addressed the point I made about a possible burglar, intruder, murderer, being armed with a torch. These are called flashlights in the USA, for WWH benefit, and were readily available in the UK by 1931. In fact we invented them. You have ignored the possibility that the murderer was in possession of a torch, and are focusing on a Victorian gas lamp interpretation of the crime, which suits our modern, limited understanding of the period. Burglars had torches in 1931. Battery operated and reasonably reliable. You are still caught in some late Edwardian fiddling with gas lamps scenario, which perhaps Wallace was, but not an up-to date-burglar. You are out of time, as Chris Farlow once sang.



Are you part of the sitting-on-the- fence accomplice theory? If you cannot come to a conclusive theory do not dilute your suspects. The longer the suspect list, the weaker the case. All these collaborator theories and accomplice are dustbin fodder, fuel for adolescent and excited contributors. Talks of ‘hits’and ‘contracts’ and gay marriages is risible.



I never suggested that there was ever a knock at the door. The culprit was more likely a burglar, not a conman. He entered the house without her knowledge.

WWH is from the UK I know him ..I got him into the case . I am the American ...you absolute moron.

And a pretentious one at that.

Not surprising you can just assume something and be so very wrong...

[RMQualtrough]

It's the conjunction, HS. Parry misleads & His misdirection covers for when he might be at the call box & He's perfectly lucid about his whereabouts on the Tuesday & The Lloyds can remember where he had been on the Monday. I think your point about the cover by accomplice is a good one, but would have the unfortunate side effect of introducing the accomplice to police.

Of course I accept you don't think Parry played any part in the crime but - and I don't think I'm being uncharitable here - that appears the premise from which you conclude there must be some other explanation for Parry's lie. It is similar to Moore hearing that Close called at 6:45pm and, being convinced Wallace was guilty, concluded that Close was mistaken about the time. Both are valid arguments, but I find both lack cogency.

Now this does not mean your necessarily wrong, of course. And it may be that I have a blind spot on this issue, rather than you, but this is the root of why we come to different conclusions. I think this evidence, plus others I have not come to yet, make it more likely than not that Parry was in the call box.

All aspects of the case have to be considered. You can't keep insisting we just consider 1 thing in isolation and use that as a starting point. You are being an intellectual bully on this even if you word it nicely.

Yes Parry equivocation raises an eyebrow. What if he didn't have an exact alibi for the call time (as he did for the murder) Context matters here. Did he know approximately the time he would have to cover for when questioned? We don't know, we just have his statement not the full police interview.

You say it's a coincidence the timing for Parry. Well for Wallace too no? In fact it's such a strong coincidence for Wallace that the only explanation that has him as not the caller is he was being stalked.

What about the distance, you say Parry is near his girlfriends at that time. How far away did Parry live. If not that far it's not really much of a coincidence? Maybe the stronger point is he barges in the music lesson as if he had nothing to do at that time (you could argue his goal was to make the call that night ) then randomly decided to visit girlfriend.

However this is a whole case with an entire context. You can't just demand we start only from 1 point and not consider everything in conjunction. That is stupid.

And for example there are things that point to Wallace making the call. We've already discussed them. Your approach to this issue is backwards .

You ARE the one with the blind spot and talk a good game but all you really want to do is defend your bogus theory of Parry and unknown accomplice.

If voting were fair and chicanery didn't go on at your site, that theory would have like 5 percent of the votes (you, Rod, your family, his "family" ( the bums he met betting on horse races) and a few people who knew you casually and felt obligated to pretend to read the book and then just voted with the theory the author chose.

[ColdCaseJury]

I can understand the point of view that I’ve emboldened and there’s certainly some truth in that but I can recall thinking when I first read about the case, and before I came to favour a guilty Wallace, “Why would Parry have give an alibi which he must have known would be disproven; and very easily and quickly?” It’s not even as if it’s a kind of “well I might get away with it” excuse. Even if he’d have said “I was just driving around at the time” it wouldn’t have tied him to the call box; it would have just meant that he couldn’t prove that he was elsewhere. By giving Lily Lloyd as his alibi he was just making himself look about as suspicious as possible.

I can only repeat my counter to this point. He did go round to the Lloyds - this is a fact - so he had to give the Lloyds as part of his alibi if he was guilty. What could be easier than to simply change the time of his arrival to a time that perhaps he went round on some or most days?

[WallaceWackedHer]

HS,

I am working through the crude Americanisms of Wallacewhackedher, exhibiting less than a neutral approach give his name for all his purported open mindedness. He is credulous about phone ownership circa 1931, totally bereft of the distinctions between British and American culture, and equally a prisoner of his own post-Kennedy voyeurism on any matters salacious. Most worryingly of all, he has not the slightest sense of self-awareness in these matters. His interest and enthusiasm are welcomed by me. His crass observations are tiresome.



You yourself are all over the place on the back door, but have not addressed my initial point: that a planned murder by Wallace would have claimed the back door was open. You are being dazzled by the appearance of the Johnsons which may be significant in another way. Leave out the Johnsons and what does Wallace have as an alibi? His key excuse withers into nothing, yet all other parts of the crime were exemplary. There is a problem here. Why was his entry to the crime scene so poorly planned, if as you believe he was guilty.



You have not addressed the point I made about a possible burglar, intruder, murderer, being armed with a torch. These are called flashlights in the USA, for WWH benefit, and were readily available in the UK by 1931. In fact we invented them. You have ignored the possibility that the murderer was in possession of a torch, and are focusing on a Victorian gas lamp interpretation of the crime, which suits our modern, limited understanding of the period. Burglars had torches in 1931. Battery operated and reasonably reliable. You are still caught in some late Edwardian fiddling with gas lamps scenario, which perhaps Wallace was, but not an up-to date-burglar. You are out of time, as Chris Farlow once sang.



Are you part of the sitting-on-the- fence accomplice theory? If you cannot come to a conclusive theory do not dilute your suspects. The longer the suspect list, the weaker the case. All these collaborator theories and accomplice are dustbin fodder, fuel for adolescent and excited contributors. Talks of ‘hits’and ‘contracts’ and gay marriages is risible.



I never suggested that there was ever a knock at the door. The culprit was more likely a burglar, not a conman. He entered the house without her knowledge.

I'm English lmaooo. I spell things in US English online generally if that's what led to the confusion.

Why are you insistent it has to be one person alone? Do you know how many solved true crime cases involve two people?

If it's one person then probably it was Wallace alone IMO or someone else purposefully trying to frame him for murder with no theft incentive.

The burglar theory is a bit silly really. I already made a huge list of points about why. Your version of events is the most credible. But still has gaping holes... Like why is there no sign of forced entry? Why is Julia setting up the parlor (to play piano by herself perhaps?) if she's alone in the house? Why was the burglar so kind as to leave money in the box? Why didn't he grab other valuables? How did he grab the iron bar without her noticing? Why did the burglar take stolen money and put it in a vase upstairs (most likely)? Why did the panic stricken killer not leave any blood marks on any door handles etc? If he was not wearing gloves, why didn't he run his hand under the sink at least? Why did he pull off a random cupboard door for no reason?

Why did Wallace act so unnaturally? Why did he continuously contradict himself and retract statements? As for the locks the suggestion is he wanted witnesses when he went in. Likely wanted to "try the doors" then go to a neighbor for help, it also seems he wanted to give the impression the killer was still in the house when he got back.

Julia was probably killed while sitting on the armchair on the left. If someone can draw on Rod's blueprint where the blood sprayed it'd be helpful.

There are more obvious hints to the scene being a staged burglary than anything else. Your version breaks down into pantomime later than the other sneak thief theory... So the guy has the money (left money in there for some reason)... He goes to the parlor. He sees Julia. She doesn't notice him. He could easily turn heel and leave out the back considering he wasn't spotted. Instead he picks up a bar by the fireplace and puts on her husband's mack without her noticing. Walks right up beside her without her noticing and hits her round the head. Then goes and puts the stolen money upstairs in a vase and breaks a cupboard for fun.

How does this make any sense? Anyone subscribing to the burglary idea please write it in more of a "short story" format talking through everything that happened in that house as though it were a fiction book. I think you'll find it devolves into Three Stooges comedy quickly... I don't think you can create a plausible series of events based on this premise. At some point it's going to break down.

The killing of Julia seems clearly premeditated, and the burglary appears clearly staged. The statements of Wallace are retracted and contradicted constantly. The idea of him being completely innocent is hard to believe.

I'd have believed Wallace was totally innocent were the evidence and crime scene (and his own behavior) different. Right now based on all evidence the idea seems very unlikely.

[WallaceWackedHer]

The following is proof of Antony's lack of true belief in Rod's theory. Much less than Rod asserts.

It also proof Antony went with the theory because the publishers wanted a "new angle" on an old case.

(He pulled his old book with a different theory.)

These are not serious people who are actually trying to solve a case. Shameful.

How is it "on balance the best explanation"?

I'm incredulous. Maybe I'm missing something here... Do people literally just think about the call and forget the details of the crime scene? If the call was purposefully set up in a way where it would be a distraction from the investigation, then it was a DAMN good one, because people are still sidetracked by it almost a century later, as were the detectives on the case (to a degree).

Look at the crime scene. Julia did not catch a thief. There is no chance of that, where she died, the silence, and the fact she was seemingly just chillin' lighting the fire alone is enough to prove that. In any case the thief isn't a very good one since he ran out of the house with NOTHING, since he'd put the "stolen" money into a vase upstairs and not even emptied out the cash box.

Do people honestly think this was a burglary gone wrong? I would really like to see anyone do a short story going through exactly how the events in that household played out with a burglary motive. I would be totally shocked if anyone could come up with anything plausible.

The crime is actually SUSPICIOUS in its obviousness. Not only leaving money in the box, but also leaving the exact amount of money from the cash box in a vase upstairs SMEARED IN BLOOD. I mean wtf? It's honestly so ridiculous I feel like he was intentionally framed for murder. Nobody could possibly do such a terrible job of staging a crime scene unless they did a terrible job on purpose, surely?! If anyone wanted to frame Wallace, this was the best way to go about it, no doubt.

[etenguy]

The killing of Julia seems clearly premeditated, and the burglary appears clearly staged. The statements of Wallace are retracted and contradicted constantly. The idea of him being completely innocent is hard to believe.

Excellent post WWH, and though it took me a long time to get there, I am completely in agreement with your extract above.

[etenguy]

its already been soured beyond repair.

Anyway, what's your theory on the case and to what level of confidence?

I'm sorry to hear that.

From what I know of the case, and in brief, I believe Wallace was the sole perpetrator of the crime for the following reasons:

1. I am unconvinced that the purpose of the crime was burglary - the evidence, such as it is, suggests murder was the prime motive for the crime
a) nothing much was stolen despite valuables being on full display
b) the details of the scene of the crime appear to suggest staging of a burglary rather than a sincere attempt
c) a burglar would have acted on the Monday night if all they intended was to remove Wallace from the house before committing the crime (they were in the area, they had plenty of time, it would be silly to rely on a risky plan to get Wallace out on Tuesday when they had a clear shot on Monday and the lack of maximising the haul on the Tuesday undermines a motive of waiting until Tuesday in order to maximise the haul).

2. Whoever killed Julia, it does not appear she was concerned about their presence in the house (she was either lighting the gas fire or sitting in the armchair when killed), from which I infer it was someone she knew or someone she was not uncomfortable being in the house with. I do not think it probable that a thief could break in and make it to the parlour and kill Julia without some noise alerting Julia.

3. The phone call and care taken to protect the house from blood contamination suggest to me the crime was a premeditated murder.

4. The behaviour of Wallace in alibi collecting, confusion at the doors, changing his statements and interaction with police (in contrast with the neighbours) all suggest a level of guilt.

5. Despite the issues with determining the time of death, what evidence there is from MacFall and Roberts and the dying kitchen fire, all suggest the murder was committed earlier in the evening rather than later, providing Wallace with the opportunity to commit the murder before going to MGE.

6. The introduction of Qualtrough as a potential suspect appears to me to have no purpose except to divert suspicion from Wallace.

That is a quick run through - of course there are other factors which detract from Wallace being the murderer (eg the restricted time in which to commit the murder and clean up, the apparent lack of motive, his consistent grieving until his death, Parkes statement etc....)

On the balance of probabilities (but not beyond a reasonable doubt), I would suggest Wallace was the most likely culprit.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I'm sorry to hear that.

From what I know of the case, and in brief, I believe Wallace was the sole perpetrator of the crime for the following reasons:

1. I am unconvinced that the purpose of the crime was burglary - the evidence, such as it is, suggests murder was the prime motive for the crime
a) nothing much was stolen despite valuables being on full display
b) the details of the scene of the crime appear to suggest staging of a burglary rather than a sincere attempt
c) a burglar would have acted on the Monday night if all they intended was to remove Wallace from the house before committing the crime (they were in the area, they had plenty of time, it would be silly to rely on a risky plan to get Wallace out on Tuesday when they had a clear shot on Monday and the lack of maximising the haul on the Tuesday undermines a motive of waiting until Tuesday in order to maximise the haul).

2. Whoever killed Julia, it does not appear she was concerned about their presence in the house (she was either lighting the gas fire or sitting in the armchair when killed), from which I infer it was someone she knew or someone she was not uncomfortable being in the house with. I do not think it probable that a thief could break in and make it to the parlour and kill Julia without some noise alerting Julia.

3. The phone call and care taken to protect the house from blood contamination suggest to me the crime was a premeditated murder.

4. The behaviour of Wallace in alibi collecting, confusion at the doors, changing his statements and interaction with police (in contrast with the neighbours) all suggest a level of guilt.

5. Despite the issues with determining the time of death, what evidence there is from MacFall and Roberts and the dying kitchen fire, all suggest the murder was committed earlier in the evening rather than later, providing Wallace with the opportunity to commit the murder before going to MGE.

6. The introduction of Qualtrough as a potential suspect appears to me to have no purpose except to divert suspicion from Wallace.

That is a quick run through - of course there are other factors which detract from Wallace being the murderer (eg the restricted time in which to commit the murder and clean up, the apparent lack of motive, his consistent grieving until his death, Parkes statement etc....)

On the balance of probabilities (but not beyond a reasonable doubt), I would suggest Wallace was the most likely culprit.

Yeah. The criminal was so intent on maximizing the haul that they risked waiting until tuesday... THEN DIDN'T EVEN EMPTY THE CASH BOX. Lol. The burglar idea is so implausible I challenge ANYONE to write out on short story form how it went down without it ending up sounding ridiculous to make it work.

The removal of the cupboard door is another obvious dagger in the burglar theory... The burglar yanked the door off to get the cash box (a completely unnecessary act) and did Julia hear anything? If she wasn't killed first, all signs point to NO!!!! I'm sure people can debate that she was killed first prior to burglary, that's a more realistic position than a "sneak thief", but still the entite notion it was a robbery is ridiculous. What can we say for sure the criminal took from the house. NOTHING. Even the iron bar was found behind the fireplace. An item Wallace claimes he'd never seen before in his life.

I feel he and many others could have had motive. Julia was a horrific character. She wet the bed every night while wearing diapers, lied about her age, pretended she was from some rich French family despite being born from peasants, accused her ACTUALLY ill husband of faking sickness to not go to work, and did not bother to clean the house - all while thinking she was too good for him. Julia's own family disowned her. They didn't even attend her funeral. And Wallace had to be MARRIED to that... A 50 year old man with sexual desires and an incontinent 70 year old witch who clearly did not put out (she was described by autospy experts or w.e. as being "virginal").

Makes you wonder if Julia wasn't giving Wallace sexual satisfaction, then who was?

The restricted time is not much of a factor, evidently there was very little to clean up from, regardless of who did the deed, and very little staging. The attack could have taken place within 30 seconds. I think a real burglar would have used the drains btw as it wouldn't be so perfectly premeditated as to avoid blood. And if it was they'd have brought their own tools with which to do the deed.

With a more thorough trial they could have had a more sound conviction. I wouldn't like to hang him even if guilty though. Clearly she had it coming to her.

[Admin]

Hey all, so because, you know, Trolls gotta Troll and also because we are still learning the new functionality of this board, we apologize for the disruption over the last few days. It did give us a nice test run to figure out how to discourage petulant children whose daddies didn't teach them how to just apologize for their behavior instead of throwing tantrums and wrecking all their toys. We have a permanent object in mind, but we are going to need a little while to implement it. Please be patient with us and again, we apologize for the disruption as we are still figuring these things out as we go.