Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

When I used to visit my grandmother as a child, she had a parlour, with a piano. The door was always closed, sometimes locked. Over the course of ten years, I think I entered that room twice...

Anyhow, Inspector Gold (once he was sober again) applied his mind to the matter of why Wallace had gone upstairs first.
"Wallace may have thought she had gone to bed. He knew she had a cold."
report for Superintendent Moore, February 1931

So nothing strange at all, Abby. Just another meaningless innocent happenstance, latched on to by obsessive little Wallace-ites.

Because they really have NOTHING ELSE...

Of course she might have just gone to bed Rod. Stopping only to rip off a cupboard door on the way.

Your floundering Rod.....badly.

Wallace knew that there was no ‘innocent’ explaination.

1. He said that he became concerned when he finally realised, after his charade, that MGE didn’t exist (you remember, after Green and Constable Serjeant told him so.)

2. He asked the Johnston’s if they heard any noises.

3. He couldn’t get in and ‘suspected’ that someone might have been in the house (you know, and then tried to wriggle out of saying it.)

4. He saw the cupboard door torn off its hinges.

Try and keep up Rod

This was a Wallace supposedly searching for a wife that he’d felt might have come to halm through foul play.

Even your Granny can’t help you out of this one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But herlock isnt that exactly what he wanted? To have someone else discover something was amiss amd discover her body when he was still out?

I dont feel it odd he might have started feeling alarmed when he realized the qualtrough trip was a wild goose chase, and not being able to then get into the house. But as ive said it does seem a little odd hes having trouble getting into the house at that exact time, but and i think folks are over looking this point is that it is even more odd, that as soon as the johnstons appear, boom he gets in.

Also i do find it odd he didnt check the parlour first, but sometimes people do strange things in stressful circs, you never know how people react or what they do in those types of situations, maybe there was something that was going through his mind that made him think of the upstairs first.

I’m not saying that it would have been odd to feel alarmed I’m saying that excuses are being made to exonerate Wallace. A door within touching distance. No one would have avoided it. The more stressed and concerned about Julia he was the more likely it would have been to check the Parlour first.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi hs
Im having trouble understanding the argument here. So he thought someone might still have been in the hoise? So what? Once he got in obviously realized no one was. Not sure how the above exchange points in any way to him changing his story or guilt. Am i missing something?

Hi Abby,

The initial suggest that I made way back (and I’m not claiming to have been the first to do so) is that Wallace was only pretending that he couldn’t get in to give the impression that there was someone inside and that it was the intruder who was ‘preventing’ him from getting in. As we know that there was no one inside then there was no one doing anything with the doors to prevent him getting in. He’d never in the past been unable to get in (despite the faulty locks which he would have been used to) so it’s strange to say the least that he struggled on that particular night. As for the front door being bolted, Wallace could easily have done that when he got inside.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes. It's in Antony's book, described there as "on balance...the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history."

The same Antony that now refuses to even be on the same thread as you.

I wonder why?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks rod, im going to get the book as soon as available in the states.

Yes and you can vote for the theory that you agree with. The voting has been interesting. American Sherlock was following it from the start as votes slowly trickled in until in the space of 15-20 minutes 22 votes were cast with 20 of them favouring Rod’s theory. It’s a funny old world.

Currently it’s

32 - Accomplice

30 - Wallace

24 - Parry.

In a book favouring the accomplice I’d have expected more. Maybe more votes will flood in?

[Abby Normal]

I’m not saying that it would have been odd to feel alarmed I’m saying that excuses are being made to exonerate Wallace. A door within touching distance. No one would have avoided it. The more stressed and concerned about Julia he was the more likely it would have been to check the Parlour first.

Ahh got it. I understand your point now. Yes the more comcerned he was the more he would have checked that parlor before running upstairs especially when he sees that cabinet and safe broken into.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Robbery obviously wasn't the motive. I can't imagine a robber wouldn't ransack the victim's purse, or the rest of the house, but instead carefully takes money out of the cash-box and puts it back on the shelf with the lid on. And to reiterate what caz (I think?) said, if the intruder had a vendetta against Wallace, he would've been the likelier target, rather than Julia.

Wallace, Wallace, Wallace.

It seems fairly obvious that robbery wasn’t the motive Harry. I can’t imagine a thief expecting a bumper haul would have said “whoopie £4!” without at the very least looking in Julia’s bag (which was in plain view) or rummaging through a few drawers or even taking some jewellery. Then he takes the time to go upstairs into the front bedroom and ruffle the sheets and throw two pillows into the fireplace. He then went downstairs and respectfully turned off the lights.

All this after Parry had gone to the ‘trouble’ of creating a plan that relied almost solely on luck.

Not particularly convincing is it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ahh got it. I understand your point now. Yes the more comcerned he was the more he would have checked that parlor before running upstairs especially when he sees that cabinet and safe broken into.

That’s it Abby. But there was no safe.

[Abby Normal]

That’s it Abby. But there was no safe.

What was the money in? A cash box of some sort? But the cabinet door it was in was damaged?

[Abby Normal]

Yes and you can vote for the theory that you agree with. The voting has been interesting. American Sherlock was following it from the start as votes slowly trickled in until in the space of 15-20 minutes 22 votes were cast with 20 of them favouring Rod’s theory. It’s a funny old world.

Currently it’s

32 - Accomplice

30 - Wallace

24 - Parry.

In a book favouring the accomplice I’d have expected more. Maybe more votes will flood in?

Thanks hs. Its an accomplice with parry correct?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What was the money in? A cash box of some sort? But the cabinet door it was in was damaged?

The cash was in a cash box which was on a high shelf. In this photograph it’s the top of the bookshelves on the left of the cooking range on the far wall.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=wallace+case&safe=strict&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&hl=en-GB&prmd=msniv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_l_qwx__eAhVHDewKHRGVDVAQ_AUoBHoECA0QBA&biw=1024&bih=1257#imgrc=mRa6o3eCGvhPzM

The cabinet door was a separate thing, apparently chosen at random. If I recall correctly it contained some photographic equipment. None of which was taken.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks hs. Its an accomplice with parry correct?

That’s correct Abby. Rod’s theory is that the accomplice posed as Mr Qualtrough who gained entrance by claiming that there had been a mix up of information. His intention was to steal the cash and then leave but Julia either caught him in the act or became suspicious of him leading him to batter her to death. The full scenario is posted on the other Wallace thread but i don’t know which page.

[Abby Normal]

That’s correct Abby. Rod’s theory is that the accomplice posed as Mr Qualtrough who gained entrance by claiming that there had been a mix up of information. His intention was to steal the cash and then leave but Julia either caught him in the act or became suspicious of him leading him to batter her to death. The full scenario is posted on the other Wallace thread but i don’t know which page.

Ok thanks for both of these last posts hs

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

If Wallace locked the door before he left then his attempt to gain entry could still have been play acting. No one saw him closely enough to see how much effort he was putting in to opening the door.

Wallace might even have conceived of the idea that a bolted door might point toward an intruder whilst he was out. He then pretends to try and get in by the front door. When he finally enters the house he’s alone. He could easily have bolted the door then.

Wallace was trying to give the impression that there was an intruder still in the house. He mentioned this to the police but then denied saying it. If I recall correctly (and I believe that I do Rod claimed that Inspector Gold made this up or was in error.) But this is from the trial:

Counsel: Do you remember Inspector Gold asking you if you thought anyone was in the house when you got back, and do you remember your answer?

Wallace: No, I do not.

Counsel: Do you still think that, when you returned, someone was in the house?

Wallace: No, I do not.

Counsel: You have given that theory up?

Wallace: Yes.

Counsel: Did you ever believe it?

Wallace: I might have done at the moment.

“At the moment” could only mean at the time of the crime as he’s clearly saying that he no longer believes it. So we have Wallace trying to distance himself from the truth that he ‘believed’ that someone was in the house when he got home.

Leading on from this we might ask why, if he felt there was an intruder in the house, did he not ask Mr Johnston to accompany him inside? Wallace hardly strikes us as the Steven Seagal type. Maybe he didn’t want Johnston to see him bolt the door? Of course if Johnston had insisted on coming in with him then the door would have remained unbolted Wallace would have lost nothing.

Wallace could have bolted the door before he left for MGE or once he was back - assuming he was guilty. Both equally plausible - but I believe an equally plausible reason can be speculated if it was the accomplice. Of itself, the bolted front door doesn't help us identify the murderer.

The back door - in the context of the front being bolted - is more problematic. If Wallace was the killer, then clearly he would have been able to lock the back door behind him if he left that way. The accomplice though would not be able to do this unless he had a key, which presumably he did not. And why would he go to the bother of locking the back door, assuming he picked up a key at the house. I can find no reason for the accomplice to do this - Does anyone have a plausible theory for why the accomplice might lock the back door?

Wallace did state he believed that an intruder might be in the house. If innocent it might have been scared and believed that possibility and the later thought differently. I try to imagine myself into that situation, with a wife inside potentially with an intruder. I too am a meek man but in that circumstance I think I would just rush in without thinking too much.

If Wallace was guilty and knew the house contained no intruder, then I'm not sure why he would invent one. It has been suggested it was to suggest someone was keeping him out the house. But he knew anyone there would soon discover the house empty apart from Julia's corpse, so what would be the point. I think the fact he suspected an intruder talks more to his innocence than his guilt.

[etenguy]

It seems fairly obvious that robbery wasn’t the motive Harry. I can’t imagine a thief expecting a bumper haul would have said “whoopie £4!” without at the very least looking in Julia’s bag (which was in plain view) or rummaging through a few drawers or even taking some jewellery. Then he takes the time to go upstairs into the front bedroom and ruffle the sheets and throw two pillows into the fireplace. He then went downstairs and respectfully turned off the lights.

All this after Parry had gone to the ‘trouble’ of creating a plan that relied almost solely on luck.

Not particularly convincing is it?

No, it isn't. And this is at the heart of my quandary with this case. I believe two seemingly contradictory things:
a) the intent of the criminal was to murder Julia and the robbery was (badly) staged.
b) Wallace was not the murderer.

Since the police focused on Wallace when they investigated the crime, we have no evidence of anyone else who might have wanted to kill Julia.

I think Rod's theory of Parry and an accomplice committing the crime is a valid reading of the evidence and allows my belief that Wallace was innocent. However, I am unconvinced of the evidence at the house that this was an attempted robbery. I can find no reason from what we know why Parry would want to mastermind the murder of Julia.