Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

It doesn't matter what he could/should have done. The fact is that he gave a false alibi, which was easily proven false, something countless other criminals have done. So this really does not mean anything. You could look into cases of many convicted killers and be like "their alibi must be falsified just because they were confused with another day!". It's nothing new, and therefore should not be considered proof he's being truthful.

I don't even think it was pre-planned on HIS part. I think he thought he was just making a call for some other reason, definitely not to take part in killing Julia. And with bookworm Wallace of all people. I'm sure he felt quite safe about the whole ordeal. I should suspect he was quite surprised when he found out what happened.

Parry knew Beattie didn't have the address because Wallace told him as much. But there was an easy "get out of jail free" card in any case, should he be like "oh that's far away, I can't make it tonight, can you leave him a message?" etc.

As for the forensics stuff, no, they don't need to hear the voice. Just a transcript of the words. That's all they need. I'm going to give him Wallace's statements, Parry's statement, and the Johnston's (maybe some trial stuff)... Unless he tells me it's gonna cost like 10K lmao.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It doesn't matter what he could/should have done. The fact is that he gave a false alibi, which was easily proven false, something countless other criminals have done. So this really does not mean anything. You could look into cases of many convicted killers and be like "their alibi must be falsified just because they were confused with another day!". It's nothing new, and therefore should not be considered proof he's being truthful.

I don't even think it was pre-planned on HIS part. I think he thought he was just making a call for some other reason, definitely not to take part in killing Julia. And with bookworm Wallace of all people. I'm sure he felt quite safe about the whole ordeal. I should suspect he was quite surprised when he found out what happened.


I certainly would claim any proof of innocence. Only that there has to be a chance that Parry might have simply been mistaken. And if Parry was only making what he believed to have been a prank call then he had absolutely no need to lie. In fact we can go so far as to say that if it could be proved that Parry thought that he was making a prank call then we could categorically call it an error.



Parry knew Beattie didn't have the address because Wallace told him as much. But there was an easy "get out of jail free" card in any case, should he be like "oh that's far away, I can't make it tonight, can you leave him a message?" etc.

But then when he asked for Wallace to come and see him tomorrow he could have said why don’t you go to his house tomorrow? With Wallace being contacted at his club which he might have found strange would this asking for his address have increased his suspicion? Either way Parry just didn’t need to ask the question.

As for the forensics stuff, no, they don't need to hear the voice. Just a transcript of the words. That's all they need. I'm going to give him Wallace's statements, Parry's statement, and the Johnston's (maybe some trial stuff)... Unless he tells me it's gonna cost like 10K lmao.

I take my hat off to you WWH.

So much is inknown and unknowable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mightn’t we also add that if Wallace used Parry to make the call why would he then try and suggest Parry as the killer after the appeal. It makes little or no sense to me. If Parry had been arrested under suspicion he knew that he had a cast iron alibi for the time of the murder unlike Wallace himself. And even if Parry was a less believable character than the respectable Wallace he still would have been in a vastly stronger position with this alibi. Surely a far too great a risk for Wallace to have taken with the gallows looming?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Mightn’t we also add that if Wallace used Parry to make the call why would he then try and suggest Parry as the killer after the appeal. It makes little or no sense to me. If Parry had been arrested under suspicion he knew that he had a cast iron alibi for the time of the murder unlike Wallace himself. And even if Parry was a less believable character than the respectable Wallace he still would have been in a vastly stronger position with this alibi. Surely a far too great a risk for Wallace to have taken with the gallows looming?

Many killers try to finger other people as the murderer. I don't know what you mean about the latter, if he had tricked Parry into making a phone call he would know he couldn't have an alibi and therefore would be a perfect scapegoat.

---

In other news I noticed that Antony did a recreation of the accomplice theory using a bunch of little kids:

https://twitter.com/ccjury/status/1111554091069644801

I wonder if any of them actually bought into it? Since as we know it is completely impossible. I also wonder if he was honest enough to put up a couple of divider walls with neighbors on either side who were totally oblivious to the arguing and commotion next door. But I mean, Julia going into the parlor after discovering a burglar to light a fire and relax should set off alarm bells even in the heads of prepubescents.

Perhaps he should try with 5 year olds next time

[WallaceWackedHer]

I also have new testimony for you all, because I bring the goods brah:

Hi my grandfather knew Wallace he always said Wallace was guilty and that he had killed her in the nude.and then got dressed after he had killed her. They are buried in anfield cemetery just by my Grandmother when we went to visit my grandmother's grave my grandad used to go mad that he is buried with her always said it wasn't right .I am in my 60s now cannot remember a lot of what he used to tell me .I remember he told me something about the next door neighbour moving out the next day.But I do remember him saying Wallace had a fancy woman and he was a lot cleverer than he let on he was .Gosh haven't heard poor Julia Wallace mentioned for a long long time used to put flowers on her grave as a child and say there for you Julie not him .surprised you young ones know about her but nice all the same

Hi I am not sure if what what i am telling you is the truth or just my grandad going on.I donot even know for sure how he knew Wallace and Parry.but i think they were his insurance men as my Nan also knew them..My Grandad was a lovely man and beside Wallace I never heard him call another living soul or say A bad word about anyone.

The last time I remember speaking to him about this case was either late 1970s or early 1980s.(i know my daughter was a baby and she was born december 1979).Either radio city or radio merseyside did a show every week called Who killed Julia I Think the mans name was Roger but I cannot rember his surname.MY Grandad used to shout to the radio I Will tell you, that swine she was married to.I Remember asking him about how he got cleaned up and he said there blood in the bathroom,and in those days he said very few people had bathrooms acutally he said "The same as every one else in those days with a soapy rag that he wraped round the poker and got rid of"He was convinced he had hit her with the Handle of the poker the thick part at the top.He said he only needed to wash his hands and face. I Donot know who the woman was but I seem to think it was a woman he used to visit regulary.

When the man on the radio said Parry more or less done the murder I Thought he was going to throw the Radio out of the window.He said parry was a wide boy he would steal the eyes out of your head but he wasn't a killer.He also said a jilted woman was a very dangerous thing.There is no scorn like A womans scorn especally scorned in love.is what he said I don't think he liked Wallace. said he acted quiet and soft but he was a chess player and could anticapate the next move.He also said that Wallace Knew liverpool like the back of his hand.

Wallace had friends in Allerton and knew Menlove ave and the gardens.He said Wallace knew there was no such adress and he played a blinder by asking a copper the time.He was also sure that Wallace made the phone call to the chess club.as the phone box was next to the tram stop were Wallace got the tram just around the corner from his house.He also said that the house hadn't been robbed and by leaving the gas fire on and leaving her by the fire and not comming back till quater to nine Wallace thought she would be burnt to a crisp. The only thing I Can remember him saying about the nieghbours was that they was that scared of Wallace doing them in apparentley he asked them if they had heard anything they move over the water the next day to get away from him .

I am not quiet sure but I think I remember in the 1960s the man that lived next door was in a home with dementia and he told someone that he had gone to rob the Wallaces house and Julia had caught him and he killed her.I Seem to rember it being in the liverpool Echo.As for the knocking what we tend to forget there was no televisions or radios then,so you could hear everything that went on in the street everyone had a distinctive knock years ago we knew who people were by their knock.grandad said that this was their habit to go to pub at quater to nine for the last drink as they shut at 10pm then.and Wallace knew this.

Last little Gem why would anyone want to Rob a insurrance mans house at the begining of the week on a tuesday when nearly everyone got paid on a Friday in those days so he would only have coppers there .And why would you close the tin and put it back in the cupboard.YOU probably know all this anyway but I would have loved you to have met my Grandad and seen his face and reactions when when he talked about him one time he was telling us about when Wallace was dying and he sent for his lawyer Who became A MP I Don't remember his name.my grandad nearly had a heart attact when he came to the part where Wallace got hold of the lawyers hand and said "WELL WE WON SONNY JIM,DIDN'T WE.

I Think he said Parry was sacked or left the prudental under a cloud in 1929.He would only have the royal liver for insurance.I Think it was him who read it out to us from the Echo about the neighbour.My grandad worked on the docks so i wouldn't tell you what he said about that .but he thought someone had said this to the poor man and having dementia he thought he did.do it.Iremember saying to him why hadn't the murder weapon been found then, his answer to that was "Dfferent days girl 1931 Murder was as rare and people were very poor if you found a lovely poker like that you would think you had won the pools take it home clean it up and pawn it.he said it was probabley sitting on someones fire grate he was a case

All messages are from the same person, but were sent separately. I tried to make some paragraphs to make it more readable.

[ColdCaseJury]

In other news I noticed that Antony did a recreation of the accomplice theory using a bunch of little kids:

https://twitter.com/ccjury/status/1111554091069644801

I wonder if any of them actually bought into it? Since as we know it is completely impossible. I also wonder if he was honest enough to put up a couple of divider walls with neighbors on either side who were totally oblivious to the arguing and commotion next door. But I mean, Julia going into the parlor after discovering a burglar to light a fire and relax should set off alarm bells even in the heads of prepubescents.

Perhaps he should try with 5 year olds next time

Don't have much time to scan or contribute to the thread as I'm writing my next book but this one caught my eye.

My tweet clearly said the year 7s and 8s recreated the trial of William Wallace. In fact, they put both Wallace and Parry on trial based on their own work. They invited me along to watch what they had done and was happy to go. And you keep on saying the accomplice theory is "completely impossible" - I presume you mean you find it completely implausible. Clearly, it is not impossible, and I'll spare you a refresher on the different types of possibility (logical, metaphysical, nomological, factual etc) and modal logics. And you keep on stating that the accomplice theory states that Julia lit the fire after she had discovered the burglar. You mock, reference 5 year olds, but can you even read?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Don't have much time to scan or contribute to the thread as I'm writing my next book but this one caught my eye.

My tweet clearly said the year 7s and 8s recreated the trial of William Wallace. In fact, they put both Wallace and Parry on trial based on their own work. They invited me along to watch what they had done and was happy to go. And you keep on saying the accomplice theory is "completely impossible" - I presume you mean you find it completely implausible. Clearly, it is not impossible, and I'll spare you a refresher on the different types of possibility (logical, metaphysical, nomological, factual etc) and modal logics. And you keep on stating that the accomplice theory states that Julia lit the fire after she had discovered the burglar. You mock, reference 5 year olds, but can you even read?

Yes correct, implausible, but so much so that impossible is a perfectly acceptable term. I can say it is impossible you will win the next Miss Universe beauty pageant - it's not literally impossible, but close enough to call it such. I can assure you that the likelihood of Julia having discovered a burglar is bordering on the sort of odds of being struck by lightning. The scenario I read of Julia apparently retreating and taking comfort in the scent/feel of Wallace's jacket (or whatever it was) is obviously Alex Jones levels of wacko. That's a nitpick of one point, but literally the entire thing from beginning to end is reptilian overlord tier wack, and pretty much all evidence STRONGLY points away from that scenario which you put forward.

If the kiddywinks actually re-enacted the scenario (with neighbors either side of the main set) you will see what I mean. Many, many posters have already explained the various reasons why it is the least plausible scenario and I am sure they will do so again in upcoming posts. It's like the Flat Earth Society of the Wallace case... The funny thing is, if you actually modified it you could make it possible, but the one you stick to is just essentially impossible.

If she was killed by a burglar, think more along the lines that he stole the cash, then realized he had to kill her as she knew him (AKA it wasn't a stranger) and therefore would be a witness. But in all similar cases where this has been done (there are actually quite a few - the person did not even know they were burgled, just murdered to silence the witness) much more was stolen and the place ransacked.

If Wallace had a mistress she could also have done it out of jealous rage, which is another common scenario in true crimes.

[ColdCaseJury]

Yes correct, implausible, but so much so that impossible is a perfectly acceptable term. I can say it is impossible you will win the next Miss Universe beauty pageant - it's not literally impossible, but close enough to call it such. I can assure you that the likelihood of Julia having discovered a burglar is bordering on the sort of odds of being struck by lightning. The scenario I read of Julia apparently retreating and taking comfort in the scent/feel of Wallace's jacket (or whatever it was) is obviously Alex Jones levels of wacko. That's a nitpick of one point, but literally the entire thing from beginning to end is reptilian overlord tier wack, and pretty much all evidence STRONGLY points away from that scenario which you put forward.

If the kiddywinks actually re-enacted the scenario (with neighbors either side of the main set) you will see what I mean. Many, many posters have already explained the various reasons why it is the least plausible scenario and I am sure they will do so again in upcoming posts. It's like the Flat Earth Society of the Wallace case... The funny thing is, if you actually modified it you could make it possible, but the one you stick to is just essentially impossible.

If she was killed by a burglar, think more along the lines that he stole the cash, then realized he had to kill her as she knew him (AKA it wasn't a stranger) and therefore would be a witness. But in all similar cases where this has been done (there are actually quite a few - the person did not even know they were burgled, just murdered to silence the witness) much more was stolen and the place ransacked.

If Wallace had a mistress she could also have done it out of jealous rage, which is another common scenario in true crimes.

WWH, if you find the Accomplice theory completely implausible that's fine with me. The whole point of the Cold Case Jury books is that I do not pretend to know what happened. Indeed, I have grave doubts about what actually transpired in each of the cases in the series so far. And the next book is no exception.

However, from my tweet:

Myself, Mr Arman and Year 7 & 8 pupils of Wycliffe College who did a brilliant dramatisation of William Wallace's trial based on my book Move To Murder in Gloucester Crown Court last night. Amazing! Loved it! Hope to see you all next year, same place different book!

you wrote:

I noticed that Antony did a recreation of the accomplice theory using a bunch of little kids.

And then:

I mean, Julia going into the parlor after discovering a burglar to light a fire and relax should set off alarm bells even in the heads of prepubescents.

Both are factually incorrect. How can you claim the former from the tweet and the latter from my book? Perhaps you intended both to be jokes, but you came across - to me at least - as having a sneering and patronising attitude with a disdain for accuracy in favour of hyperbole.

I'm sure many will agree with your views of the case even when you don't make unwarranted assumptions or belittle the efforts of others.

[WallaceWackedHer]

WWH, if you find the Accomplice theory completely implausible that's fine with me. The whole point of the Cold Case Jury books is that I do not pretend to know what happened. Indeed, I have grave doubts about what actually transpired in each of the cases in the series so far. And the next book is no exception.

However, from my tweet:

Myself, Mr Arman and Year 7 & 8 pupils of Wycliffe College who did a brilliant dramatisation of William Wallace's trial based on my book Move To Murder in Gloucester Crown Court last night. Amazing! Loved it! Hope to see you all next year, same place different book!

you wrote:

I noticed that Antony did a recreation of the accomplice theory using a bunch of little kids.

And then:

I mean, Julia going into the parlor after discovering a burglar to light a fire and relax should set off alarm bells even in the heads of prepubescents.

Both are factually incorrect. How can you claim the former from the tweet and the latter from my book? Perhaps you intended both to be jokes, but you came across - to me at least - as having a sneering and patronising attitude with a disdain for accuracy in favour of hyperbole.

I'm sure many will agree with your views of the case even when you don't make unwarranted assumptions or belittle the efforts of others.

Actually I just didn't read the tweet properly, and misremembered the fire part. But I do recall quite a lot of ridiculousness in that theory. I mean I put £££ in your pocket by buying the book so in any case you should be pleased even if I misremember a detail.

I'm just absolutely incredulous you see that particular theory as being more than like, 0.1% likely (in the way it is presented), given your knowledge of the case and skills of logic. I woulda altered it if it was my book, it just doesn't work...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Everyone on here knows my view on the case at this point in time (I don’t say that my opinion couldn’t alter but it would take something drastic to turn up for that to happen. So WWH it’s down to you) I won’t say that The Accomplice Theory is impossible though. Very unlikely imo but not impossible. I feel that I can say that because no one has argued more vociferously than myself and AS with Rod on this subject and I’d continue to do so were the debate ongoing. For me Parry has an alibi and so can be discounted as the murderer unless there is evidence of a conspiracy to give him a false alibi (and there isn’t.) The idea that Wallace took advantage of a prank call I have to admit to finding laughable. I don’t think that Wallace used Parry in any way (I know that WWH suspects that Wallace got Parry to make the call but I don’t. It’s not impossible and I could be wrong but my opinion stands.) I genuinely can’t see the Johnston’s being involved in any way (again it’s not impossible but I just don’t see it.) I dont think the killer was a stranger or the Anfield Housebreaker (yet again it’s not impossible but unlikely in the extreme imo.)

So from the named theories (obviously we can’t pronounce on unnamed ones) I think it’s Wallace or the Accomplice Theory in some form. And I’m still 90+% for Wallace alone. There are queries and doubts of course but for me there are far fewer than other theories. My simple view is that over time Wallace grew to despise Julia. His poor health and realisation that he might not have long to live pushed him into believing that he deserved to ‘enjoy’ his last few years without the misery of nursemaiding and constantly ill and complaining old woman. He came up with a plan and carried it out. We can only surmise at the details.

Even if we take one point - the viciousness of the murder. Not every time of course but this usually points to a personal motive - anger, resentment, hatred. If that one point is an accurate one in this case then it can only have been Wallace.

We can add the not minor point that only Wallace can be placed at or even near the scene of the crime.

No blood outside of the Parlour implies either excessive caution and care when leaving the house or an effort on the killers part to prevent himself being covered in blood or some form of clean up. Why would a random killer be so careful? Apart from fingerprints of course. It’s surely overwhelmingly likely that a sneak thief/burglar would have worn gloves which would in all likelihood have become bloody during the attack and yet there was no blood on the gas jets or the doors or the door handles. Would another killer have taken off his gloves to leave prints around the house? Wallace could though.

There would have been several ways that a plan to get Wallace out of the house by a phone call might have failed. None of which required any fantastical strokes of ill-fortune, just simple, plausible things that could have occurred. If Wallace was the planner though every one of these issues becomes non-existent. The Accomplice Theory relied implicitly on Wallace mentioning Qualtrough’s name to Julia so that she might (and it was only a ‘might) let him in. There’s just no way that Parry could have even hoped that Wallace would have mentioned the name Qualtrough to a wife that took absolutely no interest in his work.

Parry’s actions on the night of the murder don’t speak of a man taking part in a plan and his visit to the Williamson’s and the Lloyd’s certainly dont speak of a man who has just been told that his scam to get the insurance money has now turned into a hanging offence and that a woman that he might have actually been quite fond of had been bludgeoned to death.

I won’t go into Parkes because this is a long enough post as it is. But can anyone truly say that his testimony is believable? It make no sense at all unless we accept that Parry was suicidally moronic.

I haven’t done a long Wallace post for ages. Nothing new I’m afraid. It’s still Wallace alone for me as the likeliest solution.

PS.

I didn’t even mention Wallace walking past the Parlour this time.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I do think it's close to impossible, not just improbable. Look at where Julia was found, look at the apparent containment of the scene implying possible premeditation, note the total lack of any sound. These are just a few of the reasons that in tandem can basically rule it out.

Also a violent attack doesn't mean only Wallace could have done it. Wallace was rumored to be having an affair... With Amy Wallace in fact... Amy could certainly have battered her to death in a jealous rage... There was also a rumor of a relationship with Draper. Again, a jealous Draper could have become infuriated at Julia and at Wallace's unwillingness to leave her and committed the act.

Just saying.

[moste]

You didn't mention 'walking past the parlour this time ,did you? Lol. That's where the action had been and Wallace knew it!

,I have a strange feeling of foreboding Think I need to get home now!

WWH I don't think it's necessary to be disrespectful to Anthony, a lot of what you say is pure blather

anyway.

Here's a good tip .Dont drink

and post. If you 'don't 'drink and post , you make a good impersonation of one that does.

You haven't made assistant commissioner yet dude.Have a nice day.

[WallaceWackedHer]

You didn't mention 'walking past the parlour this time ,did you? Lol. That's where the action had been and Wallace knew it!

,I have a strange feeling of foreboding Think I need to get home now!

WWH I don't think it's necessary to be disrespectful to Anthony, a lot of what you say is pure blather

anyway.

Here's a good tip .Dont drink

and post. If you 'don't 'drink and post , you make a good impersonation of one that does.

You haven't made assistant commissioner yet dude.Have a nice day.

I don't disrespect Antony. If you read carefully you'll see I only throw shade at the ridiculous idea that is being proposed as the best solution. How can anyone believe that? I'm simply incredulous he can believe it with his knowledge and skills of logical reasoning. It's like bizarro world tier.

If someone attaches their actual self and identity to theories about a cold case that's probably not a good thing.

Anyone running with the accomplice theory presented by Antony needs to alter it to remove the near impossibilities.

As I mentioned I can reference many true crimes where a person was burgled and murdered DESPITE not having discovered the person was thieving, simply to silence the witness, because he/she was known to her. But in all those cases much more was taken and the place ransacked after the killing. There were also mistakes like bloody boot prints left, since it wasn't premeditated... But still you could seal a few plotholes.

The accomplice theory as proposed in Move to Murder has too many glaring plotholes.

[ColdCaseJury]

I don't disrespect Antony. If you read carefully you'll see I only throw shade at the ridiculous idea that is being proposed as the best solution. How can anyone believe that? I'm simply incredulous he can believe it with his knowledge and skills of logical reasoning. It's like bizarro world tier.

If someone attaches their actual self and identity to theories about a cold case that's probably not a good thing.

Anyone running with the accomplice theory presented by Antony needs to alter it to remove the near impossibilities.

As I mentioned I can reference many true crimes where a person was burgled and murdered DESPITE not having discovered the person was thieving, simply to silence the witness, because he/she was known to her. But in all those cases much more was taken and the place ransacked after the killing. There were also mistakes like bloody boot prints left, since it wasn't premeditated... But still you could seal a few plotholes.

The accomplice theory as proposed in Move to Murder has too many glaring plotholes.

WWH, you may be correct. The apparent scene of premeditation is a good point. But we all agree that if Wallace did it he was still lucky not to get blood on him and, similarly, sometimes an opportunistic murder scene does not look messy. Further, the lack of noise (Julia was extremely diffident and frail) or positioning of the body does not rule out the accomplice theory. Indeed, the positioning of the body in the parlour with evidence of the fire having been lit points to two things, in my opinion:

a) A visitor actually called.

b) Wallace killed Julia in the front room to make it appear like (a).

Now (a) is of course consistent with Accomplice. The position of the body in the parlour does not preclude the scenario which I describe in my book for Accomplice. Read it, WWH. Critique it. It might be wrong, but it's not as implausible as you suggest. However, where all theories break down, in my view, apart from Wallace, is the mackintosh. The person with the greatest motivation to prevent blood spatter is Wallace. And even if Wallace said to a collaborator "kill my wife using the mackintosh to keep things clean" (a little unlikely I would say), why was it placed under Julia's body? Could it be a subtle act to make the deceased more comfortable? Again, that would point to Wallace more than anyone else. The conjunction of both is a powerful argument - perhaps the most powerful - for Herlock.

P.S. The mackintosh contained two matchsticks that appeared to be placed in a folded seam. It's possible that they were scooped up from the floor. But if you or anyone else has ideas on this, please say. It's always bugged me!

P.P.S. If the scene firmly points to premeditation, in your view, there is no need to look beyond Wallace, as I say in my book.

[Abby Normal]

WWH, you may be correct. The apparent scene of premeditation is a good point. But we all agree that if Wallace did it he was still lucky not to get blood on him and, similarly, sometimes an opportunistic murder scene does not look messy. Further, the lack of noise (Julia was extremely diffident and frail) or positioning of the body does not rule out the accomplice theory. Indeed, the positioning of the body in the parlour with evidence of the fire having been lit points to two things, in my opinion:

a) A visitor actually called.

b) Wallace killed Julia in the front room to make it appear like (a).

Now (a) is of course consistent with Accomplice. The position of the body in the parlour does not preclude the scenario which I describe in my book for Accomplice. Read it, WWH. Critique it. It might be wrong, but it's not as implausible as you suggest. However, where all theories break down, in my view, apart from Wallace, is the mackintosh. The person with the greatest motivation to prevent blood spatter is Wallace. And even if Wallace said to a collaborator "kill my wife using the mackintosh to keep things clean" (a little unlikely I would say), why was it placed under Julia's body? Could it be a subtle act to make the deceased more comfortable? Again, that would point to Wallace more than anyone else. The conjunction of both is a powerful argument - perhaps the most powerful - for Herlock.

P.S. The mackintosh contained two matchsticks that appeared to be placed in a folded seam. It's possible that they were scooped up from the floor. But if you or anyone else has ideas on this, please say. It's always bugged me!

P.P.S. If the scene firmly points to premeditation, in your view, there is no need to look beyond Wallace, as I say in my book.

match sticks in in the mac-point to Julia wearing the mac around her shoulders and lighting the parlor fireplace when she was killed-which I guess points to the visitor killer. or simply Wallace had previously put them in there after lighting something and it has nothing to do with anything.