Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I do like it but I don't think it fits on close examination.

If there was an argument it would have been heard by the neighbors. The silence of the killing is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against a robber being discovered or an unplanned killing following an argument.

Arthur was actually staying adjacent to the parlor but I assume he heard nothing or his statement would have cropped up somewhere and been used as evidence.

And again the fact she was unwell, which makes me wonder if she would really be up for entertaining a romantic partner two nights in a row.

IIRC no foreign fingerprints were found at the crime scene, just William and the Johnstons' prints.

I would also question why the lover would purposefully give a fake address increasing the odds William finds out it doesn't exist or comes home early, as opposed to sending him off to a real address further away.

To my mind the silence and lack of blood tracked out of the parlor suggests premeditation. If someone had killed in the heat of the moment, first of all I'd expect them to have panicked and they'd want to get out of there as soon as possible, rather than think about cleaning up and the elaborate crime scene staging... Yes it is poorly staged but at the same time it seems to have some thought put into it if that makes sense? Like to specifically target the cash box (and know where it is) etc. rather than grabbing random items in the parlor and kitchen and fleeing.

I just think the evidence is more consistent with premeditated murder regardless of who carried out the attack.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH, I'm sorry for going on and on, although I don't think I'm the only one on this thread who suffers from this. But you cannot understand my position (and my error, in your view) without understanding the importance of the call. You are right about simplicity. Simplicity is a methodological rule you invoke to decide between two theories that explain the facts equally well. If you believe the facts suggest Parry was in the call box then the simplest theory is Parry, but of course this does not fit the fact of his alibi (assuming Brine told the truth). And so on. However, in a case like this, people disagree on the putative facts - e.g. Lily Hall saw Wallace. Also, in Bayesian inductive logic prior probability plays a big role (I won't bore people on the thread with the details) and this gives Wallace (alone) a big head start. If we are correct about the evidence making Parry the probable caller then those that endorse Wallace as the verdict should reduce their confidence in Wallace but could legitimately maintain it is still most probable theory overall for them.

I don't really want to conclude a marginal probability, ultimately I want to solve the case. Of course even a "solved" case is based on probabilities, especially before DNA evidence was a thing. But that's the only thing I'd be satisfied with.

You can use probability to deduce certain things which in conjunction add up together to be overwhelming, to as much of a degree as is possible in an old case.

I was hoping you would add ALL full statements from all witnesses on your website, since otherwise I'll have to take a 3 hour train ride all the way down to Liverpool for the sole purpose of seeing the files. And I'm not even sure if it's free to see them, or if there's loads missing.

Like in the last post I made while enjoying an evening out, as I said I think Wallace would have been truthful about his tram route on the night the call was made. You would know if he gave this route before or AFTER knowing it was traced which would affect that probability... E.g. if he assumes it's NOT traced he has less reason to lie. But even if it was, it would fit with him being stalked. But we can assume there'd be some things he'd overlook...

It also occurred to me that I think William did love Julia. There's a case where I think something similar happened, and that's the murder of Kathleen Peterson. I think it may have been a crime of necessity... We know that William would usually stay home from chess if Julia was unwell (which makes it stranger he went), he was buried with her - I don't think was to cause indignity, but out of love. We know he wrote in his diary about her AFTER she was killed. We suspect he may have been seen crying the day she was killed.

---

Anyway I can agree that I peg Gordon Parry as the most likely caller. The alias picked was used to implicate Parry and Marsden. The cash box was rifled to implicate them.

But do you also concede that

1) The accomplice theory outlined in your book is nearly impossible logically in how it was presented?

2) That entry through the back door was more likely and safer for the intruder.

3) That a neighbor has the best odds of getting in and out without being spotted.

4) Writing and ceossing out west suggrsts suggests either knowledge of the gardens OR that the call was MEANT to say "West:.". Nobody's mishearing east as west.

---

Anyway again my idea is this. Something happened between Julia and Wallace that sparked friction. Considering Julia's vagina was found to be "virginal" I'm not so sure she had a lover or that William ever really slept with her. Therefore I siggest an argument on

[ColdCaseJury]

It's why Antony who is biased...

Tut, tut, WWH.

If I wrote a book (like Murphy or any other author on the case) that is clearly a defence of their own position, often sharpening and levelling, then I would have no problem with your statement. But it's not. 300 pages and only 5 are actually an appraisal of my position. I don't mind you calling my position wrong in the slightest but be fair. And of course the accomplice scenario is logically possible... the logic is its strength, its weakness is its empirical foundation.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Tut, tut, WWH.

If I wrote a book (like Murphy or any other author on the case) that is clearly a defence of their own position, often sharpening and levelling, then I would have no problem with your statement. But it's not. 300 pages and only 5 are actually an appraisal of my position. I don't mind you calling my position wrong in the slightest but be fair. And of course the accomplice scenario is logically possible... the logic is its strength, its weakness is its empirical foundation.

The logic is its weakness, everything is.

Absolutely nothing about the scene matches with what would be expected if this is what happened.

I could write a WAYYYYY more plausible version of the same theory but the one in your book is close to 0% in terms of probability but you defend it gallantly. There's also a lot of weird fictionalizing like Julia seeing "M"s gaudy ring. Like, people who don't know the case might actually think there was a ring found at the scene or something. Lol.

You shut down Yseult Bridges but I'd like to see that backed up with proof she fictionalized the report in her book. I also want the statements from the other Johnston family members. Especially the old coot staying adjacent to the parlor.

But even if I were to fix the theory into something more plausible there are still serious problems. First of all, if he was someone unknown to Julia he would flee if caught. Second of all if he was caught she'd make noise (same if there was an argument). Third of all he'd have to come in the front door hence is way more likely to be spotted and nobody heard the door open or close or knocking, though the Holme family seemed to easily hear the milk boy knocking on the Wallace's front door etc. etc. etc. There are just SO SO SO SO many logical problems with the theory. It's based on a novel and exciting premise and then every fact has been shoehorned into aligning with what is essentially impossible.

It's like, I love the idea of Julia having a lover it seems so neat and obvious, but logically the facts don't align.

What the facts align with is that William knew what was going to happen to Julia, and that Gordon Parry had placed the phone call.

We can argue about the killer all day. Because there are many possibilities - though not including the Johnstons as suspects is ridiculous since there IS a lot of pointers in their direction... But as for Wallace being involved and Gordon placing the call, it's pretty sound. I think it is supported by the evidence and doesn't require leaps of faith like suggesting Gordon "forgot" what he had done that day rather than faking an alibi because he was guilty of calling.

For the killer I do peg Mr. Johnston as a high probability suspect because he can slip in and out unseen the easiest out of anyone, has time on his side (as opposed to William), and fudged his testimony on a few occasions. He NEEDS to be looked at carefully.

[ColdCaseJury]

The logic is its weakness, everything is.

Absolutely nothing about the scene matches with what would be expected if this is what happened.

I could write a WAYYYYY more plausible version of the same theory but the one in your book is close to 0% in terms of probability but you defend it gallantly. There's also a lot of weird fictionalizing like Julia seeing "M"s gaudy ring. Like, people who don't know the case might actually think there was a ring found at the scene or something. Lol.

You shut down Yseult Bridges but I'd like to see that backed up with proof she fictionalized the report in her book. I also want the statements from the other Johnston family members. Especially the old coot staying adjacent to the parlor.

But even if I were to fix the theory into something more plausible there are still serious problems. First of all, if he was someone unknown to Julia he would flee if caught. Second of all if he was caught she'd make noise (same if there was an argument). Third of all he'd have to come in the front door hence is way more likely to be spotted and nobody heard the door open or close or knocking, though the Holme family seemed to easily hear the milk boy knocking on the Wallace's front door etc. etc. etc. There are just SO SO SO SO many logical problems with the theory. It's based on a novel and exciting premise and then every fact has been shoehorned into aligning with what is essentially impossible.

It's like, I love the idea of Julia having a lover it seems so neat and obvious, but logically the facts don't align.

What the facts align with is that William knew what was going to happen to Julia, and that Gordon Parry had placed the phone call.

We can argue about the killer all day. Because there are many possibilities - though not including the Johnstons as suspects is ridiculous since there IS a lot of pointers in their direction... But as for Wallace being involved and Gordon placing the call, it's pretty sound. I think it is supported by the evidence and doesn't require leaps of faith like suggesting Gordon "forgot" what he had done that day rather than faking an alibi because he was guilty of calling.

For the killer I do peg Mr. Johnston as a high probability suspect because he can slip in and out unseen the easiest out of anyone, has time on his side (as opposed to William), and fudged his testimony on a few occasions. He NEEDS to be looked at carefully.

OK, WWH. Over to you. When is your book out?

[Herlock Sholmes]

think it is supported by the evidence and doesn't require leaps of faith like suggesting Gordon "forgot" what he had done that day rather than faking an alibi because he was guilty of calling.

I can’t see why this is a leap of faith? The alternative is that Parry was monumentally stupid in giving the police an alibi that he would have known would be checked and easily disproven thus leaving him looking guilty as sin. Why didn’t he simply prepare some kind of alibi with one of his dodgy mates? He didn’t even ask Lily to lie for him but she refused or he wouldn’t have proceeded with the story knowing that she wasn’t going to back him up. It also couldn’t have been the case that Lily had agreed to back him up and then changed her mind as the relationship would hardly have survived it. So we are left with Parry knowingly dropping himself right in it.

But if we have Parry who regularly met up with Lily under very similar circumstances and at very similar times it’s no real stretch to say that he got the events of that day confused with other days. And if Parry was innocent of course, as I believe him to have been, then he’d have had no reason to have distinguished that Monday from any other. I think that we often look at this scenario in terms of - how could he have not known what he did on such an important night as the night of the phone call? But to an innocent man; a man going about his normal business this evening was no different or worthy of remembering than any other.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I can’t see why this is a leap of faith? The alternative is that Parry was monumentally stupid in giving the police an alibi that he would have known would be checked and easily disproven thus leaving him looking guilty as sin. Why didn’t he simply prepare some kind of alibi with one of his dodgy mates? He didn’t even ask Lily to lie for him but she refused or he wouldn’t have proceeded with the story knowing that she wasn’t going to back him up. It also couldn’t have been the case that Lily had agreed to back him up and then changed her mind as the relationship would hardly have survived it. So we are left with Parry knowingly dropping himself right in it.

But if we have Parry who regularly met up with Lily under very similar circumstances and at very similar times it’s no real stretch to say that he got the events of that day confused with other days. And if Parry was innocent of course, as I believe him to have been, then he’d have had no reason to have distinguished that Monday from any other. I think that we often look at this scenario in terms of - how could he have not known what he did on such an important night as the night of the phone call? But to an innocent man; a man going about his normal business this evening was no different or worthy of remembering than any other.

Do you not know what you were doing a couple of days ago? He didn't just slightly mix things up, it was flagrantly wrong, and all the timings etc. match up, his odd barging in on Lily's lesson, the mention of a 21st birthday party.

It is a leap of faith to assume he just got confused. That would be quite weird. It's not like, a common thing when people are interviewed.

I have terrible memory and even I know what I was doing 2 days ago. 3 days ago. 4 days ago. I would know if I'd met up with my girlfriend on a certain day or w.e. lol, I'd remember barging in on her lesson.

He fits as the caller. Keep William as the wacker that's fine, the identity of the killer is puzzling, but Gordon is simply the best fit as the caller. The sole evidence against Wallace being the caller is that someone claimed it was an old man's voice. You have to then assume more things, like that he lied about the tram route.

You could use the same argument there. Why would William lie about something so easily checked?

We know for a FACT Gordon lied but we don't know Wallace lied about his route. If he did he could've pretended he went down Pendennis the usual way. Like if he's gonna lie why not go all out?

We also know with high certainty that Parry's weird arrival at Lily's fits with the timing of the call, but we DON'T know with any certainty that William's timing matches considering the tram route wasn't checked.

With all evidence in considerstion, Gordon likely made that phone call.

With a evidence in consideration Julia was assassinated in a premeditated fashion. I think I can almost PROVE this was a murder (or planned murder and robbery) NOT a burglary gone wrong. And again fhe ridiculous theory shoehorning where the burglar apparently came into the parlor with cash hanging out of his pocket (which I guess Julia knew was from the cash box somehow), like the burglary theories I've read are absolutely appalling and biased, and so illogical as to be essentially a Punch and Judy show.

This is what the facts indicate.

[WallaceWackedHer]

OK, WWH. Over to you. When is your book out?

I would put together something very good if I could get the files.

I just don't believe you can say in good faith that you believe the theory you say you do. I fail to believe you think it's correct. The book is marketed as having some new theory that finally might crack the case. So I think you have a vested interested to "believe" it. I know you wouldn't be able to admit if I'm right, but there's just no way anyone with sanity could believe it's the best solution.

The theory is just like something someone chucked together while eating donuts and smoking weed. It's so illogical.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. It is a leap of faith to assume he just got confused. That would be quite weird. It's not like, a common thing when people are interviewed.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I can’t for a minute see Wallace using someone else. Least of all Parry. This was a personal murder. Why would Wallace involve Parry by getting him to make the call? What reason would Wallace have to have confidence that Parry wouldn’t spill the beans if put under any pressure?

Once Wallace was on the Monday night tram journey what if the tram was empty from the stop near to the phone box until the Breck Road stop and so Wallace knew that there was no one to say that he got on at the phone box stop? What if the conductor was upstairs taking fairs and chatting away and didn’t come back downstairs until the tram pulled away from the Breck Road stop? If questioned later he couldn’t have said that William got on at the call box.

Before the journey Wallace would have had no issue with admitting that he’d caught the tram at the stop near to the call box if he’d been seen because he had no way of knowing that the call would be traced to the box.

[WallaceWackedHer]

So now there's a completely empty tram and conductor upstairs in the mix?

I'm not so much bothered about the implications of why he would involve Parry. I AM but, first and foremost my interest is in the evidence. And the evidence and facts we know suggest Gordon as the most probable caller. It just does. You can think he didn't call, but at least admit the facts and evidence mostly stack up against Parry.

I also tend to think the murder wasn't definitely personal... I think it might've been a crime of necessity. By most accounts their marriage was a happy one, and to me my mind jumps to the discovery of some type of affair as the catalyst... If William had Julia murdered I suspect that was the motive. But that's just a theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So now there's a completely empty tram and conductor upstairs in the mix?

I'm not so much bothered about the implications of why he would involve Parry. I AM but, first and foremost my interest is in the evidence. And the evidence and facts we know suggest Gordon as the most probable caller. It just does. You can think he didn't call, but at least admit the facts and evidence mostly stack up against Parry.

I also tend to think the murder wasn't definitely personal... I think it might've been a crime of necessity. By most accounts their marriage was a happy one, and to me my mind jumps to the discovery of some type of affair as the catalyst... If William had Julia murdered I suspect that was the motive. But that's just a theory.

Much is made of the risk that Wallace would have taken in lying about which tram stop he used on that Monday night and I’ve felt the same way. But look at it from Wallace’s viewpoint. It’s important to recall that he had no way of knowing that the call would eventually have been traced to that particular phone box so, as long as he wasn’t seen exiting the box, the police wouldn’t have been able to tie him to that box and therefore the Qualtrough call. A guilty Wallace therefore would have been better off saying that he caught the tram near to the call box.

And so Wallace plays it by ear. He gets onto the tram. Perhaps there was no one downstairs. Perhaps there was a couple in conversation and paying him no attention, neither of whom was familiar to Wallace. Maybe the conductor was upstairs when the tram pulled away from the stop near the box? So it’s possible that William had a level of confidence that no one could place him getting on the tram at the call box stop.

Its possible that William simply wanted to distance himself from the call box and so, after seeing that he’d been lucky with the tram, he felt that he could say that he’d caught the tram near to Belmont Road - in the opposite direction. If he had been seen getting on by the call box then no loss - he’d say that he caught it near a call box which couldn’t be connected to the Qualtrough call.

The desire to place himself as far away from the call box stop as he might reasonably have might explain why William illogically walked past two serviceable tram stops to get to the one near to Belmont Road.

I think that we also tend to assume that the area around the call box was like Piccadilly Circus. We weren’t there on a dark night near an unlit call box at the apex of a triangular garden with overhanging trees and bushes. Wallace might have found it none-too-difficult to have made the call unseen. Who bothers looking into a phone box? If someone saw Wallace in the unlit box they were hardly likely to have been able to have identified him.


If these events had occurred today then we would be absolutely correct in saying that William took a massive risk if he’d lied about which tram stop he used but in 1931 things were different. The fact that William was under the impression that the call couldn’t have been traced to that particular box changes the way we should look at things. When William was asked by the police which stop he’d used I just wish someone had have asked him - why did you walk past two stops to get to that one?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Really it's the opposite lol. Both if he's innocent OR guilty, if he DIDN'T know the call was traced to that booth he is better off being truthful about the route.

If he did know it was traced, then he may FEEL forced to lie to make it seem impossible he made the call. This would be a stupid move but hindsight is 20/20. If guilty he may also have been stupid enough to lie about the route just to place himself away from a potential call box. Either way it's a dumb decision because if ANYONE could verify he took the tram by the box then it's game over for him.

If he lied then why not pretend he went the usual way down Pendennis? It's quite peculiar.

To assume William placed the call himself, it takes a lot of "perhaps"es. Perhaps the tram was empty, perhaps the conductor was upstairs, it's not really based on anything... I don't think anyone could identify the person in the box (or even notice them - unless of course they went to place a call themselves lol). But as stated I think based on the facts we know for sure, Gordon is the best suspect for the caller.

I don't see that it's so difficult to perceive how Gordon could have rang and William bashed her brains in the following day. In fact think of it this way, I mean, it actually seems a legitimate attempt was made to FRAME Gordon Parry. Wouldn't it be smart to ensure he doesn't have an alibi for when the call was made? If he did place the call then William knows there's no way he has an alibi. The Qualtrough alias links to Marsden, a friend of Gordon's. Gordon knew where the cash box was. Gordon was a member of a club at the same café.

Otherwise how lucky was William that Gordon should just so happen to "forget" the events that happened two days prior?

I think William walked up that way, Gordon was waiting somewhere arount the T junction, they MAY have briefly spoken, or maybe not, then William headed left and Gordon to the right. Gordon places a phone call then barges in randomly on Lily Lloyd's piano lesson saying he'd just come from Lark Lane (or Park Lane - whichever one it was). That's what I think went down based on the known evidence and facts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Really it's the opposite lol. Both if he's innocent OR guilty, if he DIDN'T know the call was traced to that booth he is better off being truthful about the route.

If he did know it was traced, then he may FEEL forced to lie to make it seem impossible he made the call. This would be a stupid move but hindsight is 20/20. If guilty he may also have been stupid enough to lie about the route just to place himself away from a potential call box. Either way it's a dumb decision because if ANYONE could verify he took the tram by the box then it's game over for him.

If he lied then why not pretend he went the usual way down Pendennis? It's quite peculiar.

To assume William placed the call himself, it takes a lot of "perhaps"es. Perhaps the tram was empty, perhaps the conductor was upstairs, it's not really based on anything... I don't think anyone could identify the person in the box (or even notice them - unless of course they went to place a call themselves lol). But as stated I think based on the facts we know for sure, Gordon is the best suspect for the caller.

I don't see that it's so difficult to perceive how Gordon could have rang and William bashed her brains in the following day. In fact think of it this way, I mean, it actually seems a legitimate attempt was made to FRAME Gordon Parry. Wouldn't it be smart to ensure he doesn't have an alibi for when the call was made? If he did place the call then William knows there's no way he has an alibi. The Qualtrough alias links to Marsden, a friend of Gordon's. Gordon knew where the cash box was. Gordon was a member of a club at the same café.

Otherwise how lucky was William that Gordon should just so happen to "forget" the events that happened two days prior?

I think William walked up that way, Gordon was waiting somewhere arount the T junction, they MAY have briefly spoken, or maybe not, then William headed left and Gordon to the right. Gordon places a phone call then barges in randomly on Lily Lloyd's piano lesson saying he'd just come from Lark Lane (or Park Lane - whichever one it was). That's what I think went down based on the known evidence and facts.

Wallace would have believed that the call could not be traced so, after he’d made the call, he had two ways of proceeding. If he thinks or suspects that he’s been seen then he says that he used tram stop near to the phone box. If he thinks that he hasn’t been seen or recognised then he can say that he used the Belmont Road stop to place himself nowhere near the phone box. He didn’t need ‘perhapses’ because he had a plan a and a plan b.

I don't see that it's so difficult to perceive how Gordon could have rang and William bashed her brains in the following day.

I just can’t believe it WWH. I can’t believe that William would have been so stupid as to having tricked Parry into making the call which led to William killing Julia where he would have risked Parry blabbing. If we claim it as an attempt to frame Parry what if it had worked and the police had hauled in Parry. Is it remotely likely that he wouldn’t have said - hold on. Wallace got me to make that call. I knew nothing about any murder.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Ok so you know for a fact he didn't know the call was traced? So then why say Belmont if he's gonna lie? That's not his usual route. There's a reason he chose that route. It's not Oxford Street but there are still people milling around at those times. Just ONE sighting and it's over for him. He chose it specifically for a useless letter mailing alibi maybe?

You have to pay a fare when you get on the tram do you not? That's one person already who's seen him.

And I think Parry called the club too early. I think he was meant to call around 10 minutes later than he did. I think that's why Wallace pressed Beattie for accuracy on the call time, because he expected it would have come later when he was nearer the club on the tram which would exonerate him.

Did Parry KNOW Julia would be killed? I don't think so. The voice was too confident and unwavering for that, most likely, though that's weak evidence as some people perform well under pressure.

In Gordon Parry we have the PERFECT sacrificial lamb: A man with a dodgy reputation, a member of the club at the cafe, a man with arguably something personal against the Pru, a man who Julia would admit willingly, and importantly a man with no alibi for when the call was made (though we can place him at the box based on when he barged in on Lily), with an alias linked to his best pal.

Now why would Parry call? A few options. One is the use of a false pretext - with the pair being buddies. The second is, remember, Wallace was Parry's supervisor at the Pru. AFAIK he did NOT report Parry's discrepancies. Does Wallace know more than he's letting on about Parry's criminal activities? These things could have been used with or without monetary payment, and with or without Parry's knowledge of the true intention of the crime.

---

So come murder night. This is gonna be hard to crack...

What I WOULD say is it's highly likely is that anyone who entered came in the back as Julia was instructed to set up the parlor. WAS Julia in the habit of bolting the yard? Wallace says so. That's of high importance really as that's what would block an intruder unless they were let in.

In any case the person came in the back is ny theory. If Wallace didn't fo it. And for SHEER odds of getting in and out with timr to clesn etc. Johnston is your most likely candidate.

---

Would Parry crack YES. If he was arrested on suspicion of murder he would without any doubt fess up. Though in fairness he's pretty f'd as it were even if he tried to be honest. At best he'd be executed with William for murder conspiracy.

i also wouldn't doibt his murder alibi is coerced. Just saying...

He's the PERFECT scapegoat. But fortunately he was entirely acquitted and never had to sdmit to his potentisl role in all this.

[etenguy]

I do like it but I don't think it fits on close examination.

If there was an argument it would have been heard by the neighbors. The silence of the killing is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against a robber being discovered or an unplanned killing following an argument.
Arthur was actually staying adjacent to the parlor but I assume he heard nothing or his statement would have cropped up somewhere and been used as evidence.

The argument needn't have been a loud shouting match - may have been a gentle ending of the liaison, more soft and sad. May still have enraged the romantic partner who lashes out. Of course it could have been anyone from her past who she wanted to keep quiet about - not necessarily a lover.

And again the fact she was unwell, which makes me wonder if she would really be up for entertaining a romantic partner two nights in a row.

Not so unwell - she had entertained guests (Amy) and dealt with the milk lad and judging by the stuff in the kitchen, was sewing during the evening.

IIRC no foreign fingerprints were found at the crime scene, just William and the Johnstons' prints.

And yet we know Amy had been there earlier - if they missed hers they could miss others.

I would also question why the lover would purposefully give a fake address increasing the odds William finds out it doesn't exist or comes home early, as opposed to sending him off to a real address further away.

To keep Wallace out longer, relying on Julia to persuade him to go in the first place. Too far away and Wallace may not be persuadable to embark on the journey in the first place.

To my mind the silence and lack of blood tracked out of the parlor suggests premeditation. If someone had killed in the heat of the moment, first of all I'd expect them to have panicked and they'd want to get out of there as soon as possible, rather than think about cleaning up and the elaborate crime scene staging... Yes it is poorly staged but at the same time it seems to have some thought put into it if that makes sense? Like to specifically target the cash box (and know where it is) etc. rather than grabbing random items in the parlor and kitchen and fleeing.

I just think the evidence is more consistent with premeditated murder regardless of who carried out the attack.

And yet if it were premeditated, would the killing have been so frenzied - the blood splattered away from the killer and so he may not be particularly covered in blood and the mac might have caught a lot/most of it that did come his way. Not sure that the lack of blood elsewhere in the house precludes such a scenario.

But if it was premeditated, maybe the visitor was not a lover someone from her past who she wanted to keep away from Wallace and who did want to kill her.