Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Erm. The Johnstons parlour wasn't adjacent to the Wallace's , I think that would be the Holme's parlour. 27 and 29 front doors are next to each other which means the two sets of stairs are adjacent.

It was. The Johnstons' parlor is touching the Wallaces' parlor, divided only by a thin wall which supposedly sounds were often heard through (musical duets, Amy's visits, etc.).

[moste]

If the Johnstons were in their middle kitchen and they heard a thud, it wouldn't have been from Wallaces front parlour I shouldn't have thought. If old Arthur had heard anything , it would have been through his parlour to hallway wall , and through hallway wall to Wallqce's hallway, then through hallway wall of Wallace's and into parlour . 3 walls 8 to 10 feet of air space, The Holme's parlour a whole different story building structure wise ,parlour to parlour one wall between them. Now if they had been on the ball when Julia hit the floor ,they would almost certainly have audibly witnessed Julia's attack.

[moste]

Quite right I have the family's in the wrong houses.Apologies .

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is their claim, yes. Just another coincidence that they are set to move out the very next day?

What of the other family members? Do we have any of their statements? Arthur (the father) used the parlor as his room if I remember right, and the Johnstons said when they heard the thuds at 8.25 to 8.30 PM. They said they thought it was "Arthur taking off his boots in the front parlor", heavily implying they are trying to say the thuds were those of the bar striking Julia (the parlors were adjacent).

Wouldn't Arthur be in a perfect position to hear anything next door? NONE of the family heard the cupboard door being wrenched off? Just the thuds at well after 8 PM, the time at which it was said it was impossible for Julia to have been killed at (or after)?

For me this only adds to the unlikeliness. The Johnston’s had lived next to the Wallace’s for years with never a suspicion of anything untoward and then, on the night before they were due to leave, they decided to burgle the Wallace’s. And, as Julia only went to the gate with William, we can’t give an adequate explanation for why they would burgle the house with Julia still inside. Wallace said that he heard Julia close the gate and so if, as per the Sleman theory, Mr Johnston saw Julia go into the alley, she would have had to have opened the gate again after closing it. Anyone seeing this would surely assume that they weren’t leaving together but that the explanation might have been more likely that Julia had wanted to tell William something before he disappeared. The watcher would have then waited, expecting Julia to return at any second. It’s difficult in the extreme to imagine the timid Julia wondering around the alley in the dark looking for her cat with the back gate and the backdoor unlocked for long enough to lead Johnston to believe that she’d decided to go with William (and without wearing a coat too!)

The Johnston’s house was against the wall where the Wallace’s staircase was so they wouldn’t have heard that clearly. That said, the thuds at 8.25/8.30 are difficult to explain. It’s often the case though that two people can hear a noise and both point to a different direction that it came from. Maybe this is what happened here?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I asked Rod to come back, I sent him a PM in fact. I really hope he does, just because it's not a fair trial otherwise, as all of us lean on Wallace's invovlement

Yes I really enjoy a reasoned discussion on the case with Rod

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wallace goes back round to the front and Johnston unlocks Wallace's back door -> Wallace goes round the back and "coincidentally" bumps into the Johnstons who urge him to try the back door again, and now it opens easily...

If Johnston was guilty I don’t understand why he would lock the backdoor in the first place?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm going to test the method of murder at first opportunity. Using a heavy plastic sheet in place of a mac, and a 15inch piece of construction 1/2 inch rebar as the weapon , and a ripe 12 inch pumpkin as my victim , I shall endeavour to smash the fruit to smithereens, using the 'peek and smash' method. I believe I can say without any doubt I shall succeed in reducing the pumpkin to pulp, without actually witnessing the moment of each impact , Iam fully expecting the fleshy stuff to be everywhere except on my person ,possibly with the exception of my right hand and wrist.

Glad to see your doing as Holmes would do Moste

[WallaceWackedHer]

For me this only adds to the unlikeliness. The Johnston’s had lived next to the Wallace’s for years with never a suspicion of anything untoward and then, on the night before they were due to leave, they decided to burgle the Wallace’s. And, as Julia only went to the gate with William, we can’t give an adequate explanation for why they would burgle the house with Julia still inside. Wallace said that he heard Julia close the gate and so if, as per the Sleman theory, Mr Johnston saw Julia go into the alley, she would have had to have opened the gate again after closing it. Anyone seeing this would surely assume that they weren’t leaving together but that the explanation might have been more likely that Julia had wanted to tell William something before he disappeared. The watcher would have then waited, expecting Julia to return at any second. It’s difficult in the extreme to imagine the timid Julia wondering around the alley in the dark looking for her cat with the back gate and the backdoor unlocked for long enough to lead Johnston to believe that she’d decided to go with William (and without wearing a coat too!)

The Johnston’s house was against the wall where the Wallace’s staircase was so they wouldn’t have heard that clearly. That said, the thuds at 8.25/8.30 are difficult to explain. It’s often the case though that two people can hear a noise and both point to a different direction that it came from. Maybe this is what happened here?

Who says they were due to move, who corroborates the fact that it was a move already in the making? Who corroborates they had already been packing? Themselves and other members of their family? And in any case, we see that this crime is likely a planned event, not something spur of the moment. The killer(s), whether Wallace or otherwise, had to wait for the right opportunity to strike with that phone call.

And who says it was a burglary and not a planned murder conspiracy in which they were involved to some extent?

How many of the 6 people in that home had a job? Who was the breadwinner? Arthur was retired. I see no information on the other members in the household. There are no testimonies, no information on whether or not they worked, nothing. Gannon traces back family trees to like the early 1800s, but we still have such little information on the Johnston family and their statements even in his encyclopedia of the case. If there were few workers in that home, then through which means were they getting the money to live? 19 Wolverton Street was burgled in December while the couple were away, using what appeared to be a duplicate key (as were all the other "Anfield housebreakings", dupe key robberies committed in the occupant's temporary abscence)...

The Johnston's parlor was directly against the Wallace's parlor. Mrs. Johnston claimed to know the Wallaces' musical repertoire almost by heart, and always heard Amy Wallace's visits (despite them living in the living kitchen I guess). The Johnstons claimed to have heard two distinct thuds, which they thought was Arthur in the front parlor. Where is Arthur's statement? Did the police even TAKE statements from other members of the Johnston household?

And wtf is Mr. Johnston dilly-dallying for? I mean a woman has been battered to death in her own home and you're waiting around for Wallace to "check upstairs" (which Johnston had already seen him check from outside), and asking if the light was on when he left etc. Not in much of a hurry is he?

Nor, to my mind, does Mrs. Johnston's meek response to the discovery seem natural. What woman walks into a room, sees brains and blood sprayed around everywhere, and simply says "oh you poor darling"? She's awfully calm wouldn't you say?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Quite right I have the family's in the wrong houses.Apologies .

From me too WWH. The fact that I have absolutely no sense of direction is my only excuse. I do it all the time when I tell someone “no it’s on the left” I’m always wrong Good job I didn’t decide to become an architect

[moste]

The Johnstons for my money would have burgled the house while Wallace was at work and Julia had gone shopping! Also someone on another forum made the suggestion, ' Why wouldnt Wallace the night before , murder his wife ,then , after the deed was done ,keeping a very tight schedule ,go to his chess meeting for 7 45 pm. Getting home 3 hours later to a dead wife, rather than fagging all round Allerton making alibis with strangers ,who may not remember him or wouldn't want to get involved, or whatever. Better to use his chess club for reliable alibis . That's almost too obvious for words! Why didn't I think of that?lol.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Julia barely left the home right? Could they keep watch over the home 24/7 hoping Julia might step foot into the outside world?

But anyway remember a couple of things... First of all, the suggestion from the apparent confession is that the cat was meant to be used in some way... The detail of the cat missing and returning is just another coincidence it seems? I'm not so sure. There are too many coincidences or sheer luck involved in this case as it stands, with any of the current suggestions I've read.

Anyway I will put my proposition forward...

---

I believe Wallace may have had a part in this. I think Mr. Johnston, hard up for cash having to support a large household with probably at least three occupants, (Norah, Florence, and Arthur) being out of work, had turned to theft to make ends meet. I think he committed the burglary at 19 Wolverton Street using his key, which he was aware opened multiple doors. If the Johnstons can hear so much of the Wallace household through their walls, then we can surmise the same in return. Who is in a better position than Wallace to know that Mr. Johnston had committed that burglary if he had indeed done so? Especially having the knowledge that Johnston had such a key and their living arrangements, he may have put 2 + 2 together, even maybe caught him in the act.

After this, I propose he may have blackmailed Mr. Johnston to take part in some way. I am not sure as to what degree. This is a stronger blackmail case than the gigolo idea, with 70 year old Julia. Didn't the Johnstons hear any of her kinky encounters while Wallace was away at work?

I am also not sure of Parry's involvement. It is possible that Wallace tricked him into making the call under a false pretense IF the caller was indeed him (only really implied by the false alibi), like saying that he was going to pull off an insurance scam or something to that effect. I have no doubt that Parry would refuse to take part in a murder plot unless someone had some SERIOUS sh*t against him. Look at Parry's behavior in general. I think you will see he is the type to try and run away or make excuses and flee if discovered. I suppose that is why it is suggested that Parry called while another actually went into the home to burgle it, in an innocent Wallace scenario...

If Parry was used as the caller, then in the process, Wallace had established a perfect scapegoat to pin it on. Parry already had a shady past and Wallace knew he could not possibly have an alibi for the phone call if he'd made it, as well as knowing it could be proven Parry could see the chess match schedule. Parry's word would be unreliable if he tried to say it was all Wallace's idea. There would be no evidence to suggest this.

Remember also that it would be multiple words against one. The Johnstons were there "coincidentally" about to randomly visit a relative at 9 PM at night, to back up his discovery and door knock pantomime, and to state they heard two thuds at around 8.25 PM from the direction of the Wallace's parlor. They were also able to state that they heard everything going on in that home, but NEVER once heard a quarrel in their decade as neighbors. This sounds astonishing, even in the most perfect of couples... Amy Wallace had also coincidentally dropped by, and allegedly learned that Julia had been told Wallace had received a phone call at the chess club for an important business trip that evening with a man he did not know.

Wallace's quote of "her mackintosh ; and my mackintosh" strikes me as peculiar. He mentioned it in his statement to Munro without trying to back out of it like he did about Julia following him down the entry (etc), so there may have been an initial purpose to it. If he had commited the act himself, how could he make that slip? Was it on purpose to make himself seem clueless ("A. M. Qualthorpe" and "Menlove Avenue East" tier "mistakes" to make people see him as a dithering old man)?

The Johnstons easily hear Wallace knock at the doors etc, but are eerily deaf and dumb to cupboard doors being pulled off and any sort of commotion in the home. This is why the current iteration of Rod's theory does not work. Not only were the Johnstons supposedly able to hear the parlor from the living kitchen (e.g. in the case of Amy's visits), they ALSO had Arthur in the parlor which literally bordered theirs. ANY kind of commotion should have been heard, which very strongly suggests she was hit before she had time to react (either vocally or physically). Also the silence practically PROVES that the cupboard door was removed delicately, or in advance, both which point away from a burglar...

NOBODY would not hear a cupboard door crashing to the floor... Unless they lied, of course... Though any SERIOUS commotion (like that or loud shrieking etc.) should have been heard by other neighbors too. So we can safely assume such behavior was absent. We can also determine from that, combined with the lack of defensive wounds upon Julia, that the attack was quick, ferocious, and unexpected. She was not in a defensive mode, she was not expecting that she was in any type of danger, everything about the crime scene supports this.

Recall the INITIAL suggestion that Wallace was going for: That there was an attacker still inside the home when he arrived, which would be corroborated by the timing of the thuds heard by the Johnstons, and his gentle knocking at each of the doors (something no other neighbor saw or heard, by the way, even though the door at 27 is adjacent to the door of 29). How the Johnstons could hear him at both the front and back doors knocking "gently" on opposite ends of the home, I do not know, unless they are "combining" testimonies from members of the household.

Having someone else make the call (e.g. Parry), Wallace is fully aware that Beattie will confirm to the police/court that it was NOT his voice. He can be CERTAIN of that, and thus feels he has a pretty large safety net in place that backs him up as the poor, tricked husband, fooled by an elusive mystery caller.

The cash box is clean, the handles are clean, the drains are unused (ambiguous on this, not sure if the cops actually tested all the drains, but Antony is missing so I don't know). This implies gloves were used - either AFTER Julia was attacked (to cover the bloodied hands - heavily implying a planned attack rather than burglary), or BEFORE, which should mean the presence of fingerprints on items around the home such as the cash box. It could also mean that there were two people in the home, and the second person had touched everything while the first had hit Julia, and took care to leave the home without laying their bloodied hands on any handles etc.

But the only discernable fingerprints in the home (aside from investigators) are of Wallace and the Johnstons. If the Johnstons had any involvement, then this chance encounter works out perfectly for them, to excuse any fingerprints belonging to them which may have been left at the scene. The other option is that handles etc. were purposefully wiped clean of blood. For a solo Wallace, his only option would be to use gloves to kill Julia, incinerate them, and proceed from there, since he could not put them in his pockets or take them out with him unless they were sealed. Same for a hat which would have had to have been used, as visible blood in hair cannot be simply wiped away by a wet rag (which would then also have to be incinerated) in a couple of minutes... The weapon, if he acted solo, would also have had to have been wrapped (e.g. in newspaper) and this too would have been burned, and the weapon kept discreetly upon Wallace during his journey, and disposed of during his trip around the Gardens. The mackintosh and Julia's skirt were also partly burnt, Julia's body moved (her legs apparently chucked to the opposite side of the room????), and the fire upon the skirt and mackintosh possibly put out (or just left to dwindle out). All of this occurred in a window of around 12 minutes for a solo Wallace.

Mrs. Johnston and Wallace seemed to be unable to decide on which of them had uttered "whatever have they used", seeing as there are conflicting reports in papers and books on the case/trial. Mr. Johnston also evidently couldn't decide whether Wallace had "came to him at about quarter to nine" and "forced the back door open" as per his press statement, or "opened the door in the usual way, with no violence".

All staging would have been performed in advance, and most importantly, it is staged to be practically identical to the scene at 19 Wolverton Street, which is yet another added layer of protection that should have fooled police into chasing the Anfield housebreaker, which they initially did... Curiously, after this murder, all housebreakings in the area quickly ceased. The Johnstons had moved home the very next day. Something they had been "planning in advance". Yet another terrific coincidence. Apparently solo Wallace didn't know this or he would surely have planned the attack for Wednesday.

---

Diary entry from January 4th:

"Work out some definite scheme of study of properly planned and rigorously adhered to each particular difficulty consistently tackled and overcome."

It is almost complete gibberish, like some line from a David Lynch movie. Does anyone believe this is really about learning the fiddle? Why is it written so cryptically? If this was around the time his plan was hatched, we can ascertain for definite that the later entries are most definitely fraudulent and placed with the purpose of fooling the police into buying into the "perfect marriage" (and possibly even some of the preceeding ones):

The entries about the romantic evening in Stanley Park, and his "horror" at Julia's late arrival home are on the 7th and 15th respectively, after the strange entry. What cruel fate that Julia should be killed less than a week after his night of worry about her possible death at the hands of a car accident! What a charmed and doting existence these two had clearly led.

---

"Well we won Sonny, didn't we?"

---

[brotherjake]

Hi all, I've recently discovered this thread and have read through all 173 pages with great interest. This case has long fascinated and frustrated me with possible clues, red herrings and coincidences at every turn. I think the discussions on here have thrown up some valuable new theories.
WWH - re; your last post, which contained the quotation from Wallace's diary, on reading it, I wondered if it was,
a) punctuated differently
b) the word 'properly' was actually 'property'
c) the word 'study' refers to the parlour/front room
if we do that, does it make more sense?
"Work out some definite scheme of study of property, planned and rigorously adhered to, each particular difficulty consistently tackled and overcome."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Julia barely left the home right? Could they keep watch over the home 24/7 hoping Julia might step foot into the outside world?

But anyway remember a couple of things... First of all, the suggestion from the apparent confession is that the cat was meant to be used in some way... The detail of the cat missing and returning is just another coincidence it seems? I'm not so sure. There are too many coincidences or sheer luck involved in this case as it stands, with any of the current suggestions I've read.

Anyway I will put my proposition forward...

---

I believe Wallace may have had a part in this. I think Mr. Johnston, hard up for cash having to support a large household with probably at least three occupants, (Norah, Florence, and Arthur) being out of work, had turned to theft to make ends meet. I think he committed the burglary at 19 Wolverton Street using his key, which he was aware opened multiple doors. If the Johnstons can hear so much of the Wallace household through their walls, then we can surmise the same in return. Who is in a better position than Wallace to know that Mr. Johnston had committed that burglary if he had indeed done so? Especially having the knowledge that Johnston had such a key and their living arrangements, he may have put 2 + 2 together, even maybe caught him in the act.

After this, I propose he may have blackmailed Mr. Johnston to take part in some way. I am not sure as to what degree. This is a stronger blackmail case than the gigolo idea, with 70 year old Julia. Didn't the Johnstons hear any of her kinky encounters while Wallace was away at work?

I am also not sure of Parry's involvement. It is possible that Wallace tricked him into making the call under a false pretense IF the caller was indeed him (only really implied by the false alibi), like saying that he was going to pull off an insurance scam or something to that effect. I have no doubt that Parry would refuse to take part in a murder plot unless someone had some SERIOUS sh*t against him. Look at Parry's behavior in general. I think you will see he is the type to try and run away or make excuses and flee if discovered. I suppose that is why it is suggested that Parry called while another actually went into the home to burgle it, in an innocent Wallace scenario...

If Parry was used as the caller, then in the process, Wallace had established a perfect scapegoat to pin it on. Parry already had a shady past and Wallace knew he could not possibly have an alibi for the phone call if he'd made it, as well as knowing it could be proven Parry could see the chess match schedule. Parry's word would be unreliable if he tried to say it was all Wallace's idea. There would be no evidence to suggest this.

Remember also that it would be multiple words against one. The Johnstons were there "coincidentally" about to randomly visit a relative at 9 PM at night, to back up his discovery and door knock pantomime, and to state they heard two thuds at around 8.25 PM from the direction of the Wallace's parlor. They were also able to state that they heard everything going on in that home, but NEVER once heard a quarrel in their decade as neighbors. This sounds astonishing, even in the most perfect of couples... Amy Wallace had also coincidentally dropped by, and allegedly learned that Julia had been told Wallace had received a phone call at the chess club for an important business trip that evening with a man he did not know.

Wallace's quote of "her mackintosh ; and my mackintosh" strikes me as peculiar. He mentioned it in his statement to Munro without trying to back out of it like he did about Julia following him down the entry (etc), so there may have been an initial purpose to it. If he had commited the act himself, how could he make that slip? Was it on purpose to make himself seem clueless ("A. M. Qualthorpe" and "Menlove Avenue East" tier "mistakes" to make people see him as a dithering old man)?

The Johnstons easily hear Wallace knock at the doors etc, but are eerily deaf and dumb to cupboard doors being pulled off and any sort of commotion in the home. This is why the current iteration of Rod's theory does not work. Not only were the Johnstons supposedly able to hear the parlor from the living kitchen (e.g. in the case of Amy's visits), they ALSO had Arthur in the parlor which literally bordered theirs. ANY kind of commotion should have been heard, which very strongly suggests she was hit before she had time to react (either vocally or physically). Also the silence practically PROVES that the cupboard door was removed delicately, or in advance, both which point away from a burglar...

NOBODY would not hear a cupboard door crashing to the floor... Unless they lied, of course... Though any SERIOUS commotion (like that or loud shrieking etc.) should have been heard by other neighbors too. So we can safely assume such behavior was absent. We can also determine from that, combined with the lack of defensive wounds upon Julia, that the attack was quick, ferocious, and unexpected. She was not in a defensive mode, she was not expecting that she was in any type of danger, everything about the crime scene supports this.

Recall the INITIAL suggestion that Wallace was going for: That there was an attacker still inside the home when he arrived, which would be corroborated by the timing of the thuds heard by the Johnstons, and his gentle knocking at each of the doors (something no other neighbor saw or heard, by the way, even though the door at 27 is adjacent to the door of 29). How the Johnstons could hear him at both the front and back doors knocking "gently" on opposite ends of the home, I do not know, unless they are "combining" testimonies from members of the household.

Having someone else make the call (e.g. Parry), Wallace is fully aware that Beattie will confirm to the police/court that it was NOT his voice. He can be CERTAIN of that, and thus feels he has a pretty large safety net in place that backs him up as the poor, tricked husband, fooled by an elusive mystery caller.

The cash box is clean, the handles are clean, the drains are unused (ambiguous on this, not sure if the cops actually tested all the drains, but Antony is missing so I don't know). This implies gloves were used - either AFTER Julia was attacked (to cover the bloodied hands - heavily implying a planned attack rather than burglary), or BEFORE, which should mean the presence of fingerprints on items around the home such as the cash box. It could also mean that there were two people in the home, and the second person had touched everything while the first had hit Julia, and took care to leave the home without laying their bloodied hands on any handles etc.

But the only discernable fingerprints in the home (aside from investigators) are of Wallace and the Johnstons. If the Johnstons had any involvement, then this chance encounter works out perfectly for them, to excuse any fingerprints belonging to them which may have been left at the scene. The other option is that handles etc. were purposefully wiped clean of blood. For a solo Wallace, his only option would be to use gloves to kill Julia, incinerate them, and proceed from there, since he could not put them in his pockets or take them out with him unless they were sealed. Same for a hat which would have had to have been used, as visible blood in hair cannot be simply wiped away by a wet rag (which would then also have to be incinerated) in a couple of minutes... The weapon, if he acted solo, would also have had to have been wrapped (e.g. in newspaper) and this too would have been burned, and the weapon kept discreetly upon Wallace during his journey, and disposed of during his trip around the Gardens. The mackintosh and Julia's skirt were also partly burnt, Julia's body moved (her legs apparently chucked to the opposite side of the room????), and the fire upon the skirt and mackintosh possibly put out (or just left to dwindle out). All of this occurred in a window of around 12 minutes for a solo Wallace.

Mrs. Johnston and Wallace seemed to be unable to decide on which of them had uttered "whatever have they used", seeing as there are conflicting reports in papers and books on the case/trial. Mr. Johnston also evidently couldn't decide whether Wallace had "came to him at about quarter to nine" and "forced the back door open" as per his press statement, or "opened the door in the usual way, with no violence".

All staging would have been performed in advance, and most importantly, it is staged to be practically identical to the scene at 19 Wolverton Street, which is yet another added layer of protection that should have fooled police into chasing the Anfield housebreaker, which they initially did... Curiously, after this murder, all housebreakings in the area quickly ceased. The Johnstons had moved home the very next day. Something they had been "planning in advance". Yet another terrific coincidence. Apparently solo Wallace didn't know this or he would surely have planned the attack for Wednesday.

---

Diary entry from January 4th:



It is almost complete gibberish, like some line from a David Lynch movie. Does anyone believe this is really about learning the fiddle? Why is it written so cryptically? If this was around the time his plan was hatched, we can ascertain for definite that the later entries are most definitely fraudulent and placed with the purpose of fooling the police into buying into the "perfect marriage" (and possibly even some of the preceeding ones):

The entries about the romantic evening in Stanley Park, and his "horror" at Julia's late arrival home are on the 7th and 15th respectively, after the strange entry. What cruel fate that Julia should be killed less than a week after his night of worry about her possible death at the hands of a car accident! What a charmed and doting existence these two had clearly led.

---

"Well we won Sonny, didn't we?"

---

Interesting stuff WWH,

Coincidentally I decided last night to consider and list any doubts that I have when considering the Johnston’s involvement.

1. Wallace would have had very limited contact with the Johnston’s. Even less than Julia as he was out at work during the day so it’s difficult to see how a) he would have had time to build up any kind of level of confidence that he could even broach the subject let alone have confidence that Johnston would be open to the idea. After all, what if Johnston had said “no?’ Wallace couldn’t then have gone on to kill Julia. And b) How and where could they have discussed the plan. This would have been planned over a period of time requiring quite a few meetings. Wallace’s life was -work-home with Julia-occasional visits to the chess club.

2. I’d suggest that someone planning a murder would be lucky to find one accomplice willing to take on the huge risks involved and so how less likely would it be to find an accomplice who’s wife was willing to be in on it too?

3. Why didn’t Mr Johnston play the concerned neighbour and witness by entering the house with William? Especially as it appears that he was trying to give the impression that an intruder was still inside?

4. Why didn’t the Johnston’s simply say that as soon as they left their house they saw a shadowy figure run from the Wallace’s backdoor and leave by the gate seconds before Wallace returned from trying the front door?

5. If the Johnston’s were involved why didn’t they completely ransack the house to make it seriously look like a burglary as they would have known, if part of the plan, that they had limitless time.

6. If Johnston was the killer why would he have taken Julia into the Parlour?

7. If Johnston was the killer why would he have turned off the lights?

Ill read your scenario again later today.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Welcome to the thread brotherjake by the way.

Btw is your name anything to do with the song by Free - My Brother Jake?

[brotherjake]

Yes indeed Herlock, one of my favourite songs from my favourite band and thank you for the welcome.