Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Eten

.
There are indeed some good points. But the phone call to the chess club seems important and doesn't feature (unless you believe the phone call was not connected and is entirely coincidental). It would for instance be highly indicative that it was not the local housebreaker. It would undermine that someone was trying to frame Wallace during the murder (else why provide a potential alternative suspect, the caller). It also gives Wallace his alibi, such as it is. It is also indicative that the caller knew Wallace (and therefore by extension that Julia existed).

I can’t disconnect the phone call and the murder. I believe that the person that made the call was either the murderer or connected to the murder. WWH has suggested that Wallace might have tricked Parry into making the call but I have to disagree on this particular point. I just don’t think that Wallace would have risked Parry cracking under police questioning and spilling the beans (especially as he had an alibi for the time of the murder.)

.
I do agree that the two most likely potential motives are murder or robbery. The reason for the phone call seems to me most likely to provide an alibi for Wallace. I can see no strong reason to get Mr Wallace out of the house to commit a robbery in the knowledge that Mrs Wallace would be there. If that was the intention of the call it would seem superfluous since the house was only occupied by Mrs Wallace on the night the call was made. In any event, there were predictable times when both would be out of the house and that would seem the best opportunity to commit a robbery.

One of my strongest objections to the Accomplice Theory is that it’s reliant upon William telling Julia, not only about where he was going on the night of the murder but actually mentioning the name Qualtrough as this might allow Julia to let him in (as we know from Wallace that there were only a select few that she would admit into the house if she was alone.) If Parry had planned this there’s no reason at all for him to be confident that this might have occurred. Julia took no interest in William’s business dealings (Parry would likely have been aware of this) and so it might easily have been the case that William just said “I have to go out on business tonight.” As it happens he did mention the area because Amy confirmed this but he didn’t mention Qualtrough as far as we know. So we are left to believe that an extremely reticent Julia would have admitted a complete stranger, after dark, whilst her husband was out. Apart from anything we have the chance of scandal and rumour of course. Even if someone watching the front door from across the road didn’t know for certain that Julia was alone in the house (despite the fact that she answered the door after dark and not her husband) they would have found out if they’d seen William return via the front door later that evening.

.
I am therefore of the view that murder was the motive, committed by someone who knew the Wallaces. If you start from that premise, motive murder, then it must have been Wallace or else Julia would have been murdered during the Chess tournament.

[/QUOTE]

It will not surprise you in the slightest when I say.....I agree.

[etenguy]

It will not surprise you in the slightest when I say.....I agree.

Hi Herlock

And yet we have to acknowledge that:

a) we can only speculate on motive (bad marriage, gay lover kept secret even after murder, intellectual exercise (wanted to outwit police)) - who knows
b) the testimony of the garage crew about Parry and the bloody car points to Parry (I'm not convinced by it, or if true that it was necessarily connected - but we can't ignore either)
c) the how is still logistically difficult to reconstruct
d) Wallace's behaviour post murder seemed genuinely affectionate to Julia (remorse perhaps?)
e) maybe someone else wanted Julia dead and concocted this convoluted plan (but who or why would be only speculative without more information)
f) naked Wallace with a mac shield just seems so unlikely.
g) the milk boy calling really narrows the window of opportunity for Wallace - did he really have time?

Despite all the above, Wallace is still the bookies favourite from what we currently know, at least in my opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

And yet we have to acknowledge that:

a) we can only speculate on motive (bad marriage, gay lover kept secret even after murder, intellectual exercise (wanted to outwit police)) - who knows true
b) the testimony of the garage crew about Parry and the bloody car points to Parry (I'm not convinced by it, or if true that it was necessarily connected - but we can't ignore either) true, we have to consider it but I think the facts make it overwhelmingly unlikely
c) the how is still logistically difficult to reconstruct I don’t think it’s too difficult
d) Wallace's behaviour post murder seemed genuinely affectionate to Julia (remorse perhaps?) it does but maybe he was a good liar. If someone can kill brutally it’s not unlikely that they can act the grieving spouse.
e) maybe someone else wanted Julia dead and concocted this convoluted plan (but who or why would be only speculative without more information) it’s possible but it’s difficult to imagine knowing her limited circle.
f) naked Wallace with a mac shield just seems so unlikely. I don’t think he needed to be naked.
g) the milk boy calling really narrows the window of opportunity for Wallace - did he really have time? I think he had between 10-12 minutes which I don’t see as a problem.

Despite all the above, Wallace is still the bookies favourite from what we currently know, at least in my opinion.

I do know what you mean though Eten. Virtually every point has a possible alternative explanation.

[etenguy]

I do know what you mean though Eten. Virtually every point has a possible alternative explanation.

I'm not entirely sure why, but I'm very drawn to finding an alternative explanation. Rod's theory was very seductive, but in the end not entirely convincing, at least to me. There is such ambiguity about the crime it deserves a better explanation. The romantic about me feels sure that Julia deserved better than to be betrayed by the man she loved. And yet, from what we know, it seems that was her fate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not entirely sure why, but I'm very drawn to finding an alternative explanation. Rod's theory was very seductive, but in the end not entirely convincing, at least to me. There is such ambiguity about the crime it deserves a better explanation. The romantic about me feels sure that Julia deserved better than to be betrayed by the man she loved. And yet, from what we know, it seems that was her fate.

Maybe it’s the same as when I’ve said that I wish that the Knight Theory was true.

[etenguy]

Maybe it’s the same as when I’ve said that I wish that the Knight Theory was true.

Yes, saw a film based on that in which Sherlock Holmes solved the case - most entertaining.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, saw a film based on that in which Sherlock Holmes solved the case - most entertaining.

Murder By Decree. You might have guessed from my name that I’m a huge fan of Holmes. I collect books, movies, autographs etc. When I was in London last I visited the location were they filmed the scene outside the theatre at the beginning of that movie.

[etenguy]

Murder By Decree. You might have guessed from my name that I’m a huge fan of Holmes. I collect books, movies, autographs etc. When I was in London last I visited the location were they filmed the scene outside the theatre at the beginning of that movie.

I pass the sherlock holmes museum quite often but not visited. I enjoy the books and really liked the re-imagined version with Benedict Cumberbatch. My favourite re-imagining of holmes, though, is Mr Spock who claims Holmes as an ancestor.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hm, well what strikes me is that when Wallace gave the names of people HE suspects, he gave a LOT of information on Gordon Parry and Marsden. He essentially was saying they did it in so many words.

Coincidentally both of these men had no alibi for the call, and then Marsden for the night of the killing. Not only that but aspects of the event linked to them, like the Qualtrough alias to Marsden and Parry being a member of the drama club at the cafe. Both had also left the Pru with shady records.

To ME it suggests that Wallace KNEW they'd have no alibi because he involved them in it, or alternatively he was innocent and to him those were the most likely suspects.

Otherwise he is EXTRAORDINARILY lucky that both men he named as prime suspects had B.S. or weak alibis. Imagine they both had strong alibis, he'd basically be f*cked. So he must have been very lucky.

Something else I'd like to bring up is Alan Close. Say Wallace had acted all alone and was in fact waiting for the milk boy to come before he could leave home. Put yourself in his shoes. At what point do you become antsy and assume he's not going to come at all? If you expected him at 6.05, would you wait 30 entire minutes? You'd think after about 20 you'd assume he's not coming and have to enact the plan.

If Alan did come at that time he wouldn't have been an alibi anyway since he'd have arrived way too early at Menlove had he left home within the same time frame. So I'm not even sure Alan Close was ever even part of his plan.

Something interesting... The Holme family reported hearing a crash like someone falling to the floor AFTER Alan had opened the door, and that the door closed after this. It seems basically impossible that could be accurate, unless Wallace had brought someone in with him when he got back from work.

I also read a very strong point re: robbery. A burglar surely would just grab the box? It was only a small thing right? I don't know. Why WOULDN'T they do that? The fact they killed Julia obv it was someone she knew even if it was a robbery or they would've just bolted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Hm, well what strikes me is that when Wallace gave the names of people HE suspects, he gave a LOT of information on Gordon Parry and Marsden. He essentially was saying they did it in so many words.

Coincidentally both of these men had no alibi for the call, and then Marsden for the night of the killing. Not only that but aspects of the event linked to them, like the Qualtrough alias to Marsden and Parry being a member of the drama club at the cafe. Both had also left the Pru with shady records.

To ME it suggests that Wallace KNEW they'd have no alibi because he involved them in it, or alternatively he was innocent and to him those were the most likely suspects.

Otherwise he is EXTRAORDINARILY lucky that both men he named as prime suspects had B.S. or weak alibis. Imagine they both had strong alibis, he'd basically be f*cked. So he must have been very lucky.

He was certainly pointing the police in their direction due to the added information. Considerably more on Parry than Marsden of course. I don’t think that it was Wallace’s exclusive plan to fit up either Parry or Marsden. The priority was to kill Julia and ensure that he himself didn’t look guilty. I think that he threw them both up as possibilities for the police. If they didn’t have an alibi then all well and good (as you say, Wallace had no way of knowing) but if they’d had an alibi then the police would have been forced to look elsewhere.

Something else I'd like to bring up is Alan Close. Say Wallace had acted all alone and was in fact waiting for the milk boy to come before he could leave home. Put yourself in his shoes. At what point do you become antsy and assume he's not going to come at all? If you expected him at 6.05, would you wait 30 entire minutes? You'd think after about 20 you'd assume he's not coming and have to enact the plan.

If Alan did come at that time he wouldn't have been an alibi anyway since he'd have arrived way too early at Menlove had he left home within the same time frame. So I'm not even sure Alan Close was ever even part of his plan.

Its a good point. Maybe if Close had been 2 minutes later things might have been different? Maybe he had a plan b?

Something interesting... The Holme family reported hearing a crash like someone falling to the floor AFTER Alan had opened the door, and that the door closed after this. It seems basically impossible that could be accurate, unless Wallace had brought someone in with him when he got back from work.

But if Wallace had bought someone else home with him then what would they have been doing to make the crash if Julia was busy dealing with Alan Close?

I also read a very strong point re: robbery. A burglar surely would just grab the box? It was only a small thing right? I don't know. Why WOULDN'T they do that? The fact they killed Julia obv it was someone she knew even if it was a robbery or they would've just bolted.

Someone proposing The Accomplice Theory would give you a reason WWH. For me the massive point against it being a robbery is the almost complete lack of an attempt to steal anything. With Julia dead and Wallace out of the way a burglar/murderer would have had plenty of time.

[etenguy]

Someone proposing The Accomplice Theory would give you a reason WWH. For me the massive point against it being a robbery is the almost complete lack of an attempt to steal anything. With Julia dead and Wallace out of the way a burglar/murderer would have had plenty of time.

Although finding some attraction to the Accomplice Theory, I reach the conclusion on the basis of a balance of probabilities that the most likely murderer was Wallace.

Having said that, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the box not being taken and an extensive burglary not taking place. It is speculative but logical. It is not the only possibility, but goes:

The burglar was intending to target the premium takings at the beginning of the plan (which they had reason to believe was a sizeable amount although it didn't turn out that way).
With only Julia in the house, the plan may well have been to take the money without her knowing and replacing the box was to avoid Julia noticing it was missing before he was long gone.
After stealing the money that was in the box, Julia either caught him in the act or discovered the crime while the burglar was still in the house.
Perhaps threatening to cause a scene or calling the police, the burglar lashed out at her and killed her.
Being shook up by becoming a murderer, he left in a hurry in an emotional state.

The most serious challenge to the above scenario is why the neighbours heard nothing. Either Julia did scream or shout and the neighbours did not hear or she froze and didn't make a significant noise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Although finding some attraction to the Accomplice Theory, I reach the conclusion on the basis of a balance of probabilities that the most likely murderer was Wallace.

Having said that, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the box not being taken and an extensive burglary not taking place. It is speculative but logical. It is not the only possibility, but goes:

The burglar was intending to target the premium takings at the beginning of the plan (which they had reason to believe was a sizeable amount although it didn't turn out that way).
With only Julia in the house, the plan may well have been to take the money without her knowing and replacing the box was to avoid Julia noticing it was missing before he was long gone.
After stealing the money that was in the box, Julia either caught him in the act or discovered the crime while the burglar was still in the house.
Perhaps threatening to cause a scene or calling the police, the burglar lashed out at her and killed her.
Being shook up by becoming a murderer, he left in a hurry in an emotional state.

The most serious challenge to the above scenario is why the neighbours heard nothing. Either Julia did scream or shout and the neighbours did not hear or she froze and didn't make a significant noise.

Hi Eten,

Id add that if Julia had caught the guy in the act, after he’d returned the box to the shelf, and then killed her, it’s difficult to see why he’d pull off the cupboard door? It’s unlikely that he would have attempted something so potentially noisy with Julia in the next room (although it might be suggested by some that she’d gone upstairs to the loo) If he had the time and the inclination to pull the cupboard door off why didn’t he make a search for cash and valuables to make up for his meagre haul?

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

Id add that if Julia had caught the guy in the act, after he’d returned the box to the shelf, and then killed her, it’s difficult to see why he’d pull off the cupboard door? It’s unlikely that he would have attempted something so potentially noisy with Julia in the next room (although it might be suggested by some that she’d gone upstairs to the loo) If he had the time and the inclination to pull the cupboard door off why didn’t he make a search for cash and valuables to make up for his meagre haul?

The cupboard door is a problem. If Wallace was the murderer, we might surmise he would pull off the door as part of trying to suggest a burglary. It is only with extreme speculation we might explain the door if 'Qualtrough' or A N Other were attempting to be a sneak thief. Could it have been an accident? Difficult to see how, unless the door was open and Qualtrough crashed into it by accident, breaking the door and perhaps alerting Julia to a crime, or at least strange behaviour by her guest. Another flight of speculation is that Julia caught the sneak thief red handed and he first lashed out at Julia in the kitchen, the door broken during the initial attack, but this leaves Julia silent for longer and only raises questions about how she ended up in the parlour.

The easier explanation to accept is Wallace staging a burglary.

[ColdCaseJury]

The cupboard door is a problem. If Wallace was the murderer, we might surmise he would pull off the door as part of trying to suggest a burglary. It is only with extreme speculation we might explain the door if 'Qualtrough' or A N Other were attempting to be a sneak thief. Could it have been an accident? Difficult to see how, unless the door was open and Qualtrough crashed into it by accident, breaking the door and perhaps alerting Julia to a crime, or at least strange behaviour by her guest. Another flight of speculation is that Julia caught the sneak thief red handed and he first lashed out at Julia in the kitchen, the door broken during the initial attack, but this leaves Julia silent for longer and only raises questions about how she ended up in the parlour.

The easier explanation to accept is Wallace staging a burglary.

Hi guys - busy writing 4th book so I haven't peeked here for weeks. Please note the top half of cupboard door was broken and attached loosely by a hook. My understanding is that not much pressure was required for it to come apart. This does beg the question why Wallace said, "Look, they've wrenched that off." But it also could point to other scenarios, too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi guys - busy writing 4th book so I haven't peeked here for weeks. Please note the top half of cupboard door was broken and attached loosely by a hook. My understanding is that not much pressure was required for it to come apart. This does beg the question why Wallace said, "Look, they've wrenched that off." But it also could point to other scenarios, too.

Hi Antony,

If the cupboard was in poor condition this would have made it easier for Wallace to have pulled it off before Julia’s death. If it was poorly attached then it wouldn’t have required much explaining.