Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

I believe there are at least two:
a) a robbery that ended in murder
b) a murder disguised as a robbery.

There are probably other more imaginative scenarios, but one of these two is most likely to explain what happened. The crime scene evidence supports either option a or b and of itself is inconclusive. Any chance of solving this case will, I think, require evidence outside of the crime scene - as you have sought to provide to support the Parry/accomplice theory.

b) I think can be ruled out, as it doesn't fit and makes no sense, unless b) was made to look like a) down to the last detail - and I believe stuff like that only occurs in Poirot, not in the real world...

[Herlock Sholmes]

b) Eten

Almost no doubt.

Parry wasn’t involved.

A scenario doesn’t equate to a solution.

[etenguy]

Actually I was musing that the brief conversation was conducted through a locked door.

I realise that moste - I was taking it one step further to demonstrate how your scenario with one adjustment could have led to her murder.

[RodCrosby]

b) Eten

Almost no doubt.

Parry wasn’t involved.

A scenario doesn’t equate to a solution.

borrow a few more books from the [cough] "Sherlock Holmes Society" and you might yet get a handle on his methods...

[Herlock Sholmes]

"I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me."
Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires

The definition of irony when you use it

[etenguy]

b) I think can be ruled out, as it doesn't fit and makes no sense, unless b) was made to look like a) down to the last detail - and I believe stuff like that only occurs in Poirot, not in the real world...

Unfortunately it happens more than you might imagine. A quick google brings up a number of such cases, eg:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1456724/Wife-81-killed-husband-and-invented-burglary-cover-up.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sherri_Rasmussen

I can find nothing about the crime scene that rules out either option a or b. What is it about the evidence which rules out Julia's murder as the main intent of the crime for you? Is it that you have a better theory (Parry/Accomplice) or is there something which is decisive for you to conclude it could not have been a disguised murder?

[moste]

I realise that moste - I was taking it one step further to demonstrate how your scenario with one adjustment could have led to her murder.

I see. Ok

[RodCrosby]

Unfortunately it happens more than you might imagine. A quick google brings up a number of such cases, eg:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1456724/Wife-81-killed-husband-and-invented-burglary-cover-up.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sherri_Rasmussen

I can find nothing about the crime scene that rules out either option a or b. What is it about the evidence which rules out Julia's murder as the main intent of the crime for you? Is it that you have a better theory (Parry/Accomplice) or is there something which is decisive for you to conclude it could not have been a disguised murder?

I did say - to the last detail

What are the details?

[etenguy]

I did say - to the last detail

What are the details?

I'm not sure I understand your question. If you mean the details of the examples I linked, then for the first one:

a woman stabbed and killed her husband and told police two burglars had been confronted by her husband who killed him. She opened an upstairs window, placed a ladder against the wall, hid some of jewelery which she claimed had been stolen, ransacked her house and gave detailed descriptions of two men she had seen shopping earlier. So good was her description that the men were traced and eliminated due to strong alibis.

Is that what you meant?

[RodCrosby]

So she messed up and got caught..

No, I meant the details of the Wallace crime scene.

[etenguy]

So she messed up and got caught..

No, I meant the details of the Wallace crime scene.

She confessed to her son in the end - presumably a guilty conscience, but not before over 400 police hours were spent investigating.

As for the Wallace crime scene - pertinent points include:

a locked front door
a brutally battered woman/corpse
considerable blood splattered around the room
a mackintosh under/to the side of the body
a cash box emptied but neatly replaced on a high shelf
some dishevelment in the house - cupboard door/pillows etc...
missing murder weapon (poker and rod missing)
no blood found elsewhere (sinks-drains)
husband lured out of the house (by himself or others)

[etenguy]

I guess I should add

other valuables and monies not stolen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Eten, you have to remember that we’re down an obsessive rabbit-hole here. No matter what valid and obvious points are brought up Rod will wriggle and twist.

The plan is almost totally reliant on luck for Parry’s unless you apply it to Wallace then it can’t fail.

Can anyone imagine an accomplice willing to take all the risks whilst Parry drinks tea in safely with the Brines?

Or we have Rod’s ‘you win some you lose some’ approach to a plan. Who goes to all that trouble on the off chance of success?

What kind of idiot accomplice takes away a bloodied weapon that can’t be linked to him in any way? Perhaps he wanted a souvenir

What kind of idiot coughs up to the crime 3 hours later to someone that doesn’t like him. He panicked Do me a favour. How hard do we need to keep working to keep this fantasy alive.

Then we have a sneak thief, finding a paltry £4 not even bothering to make good by searching Julia’s bag or rifling a few drawers. Not believable.

No he decides to considerately turn off the lights before departing. It’s a wonder he didn’t do a bit of light dusting before he went

Then we have Wallace believing his wife to have been a victim of foul play not bothering to open a door that’s within reach.

We have a sneak thief who apparently ‘looks’ in the front bedroom (he disturbs the blankets and throws two pillows into the fire place) but ignores the other two rooms.

Oh and we have Julia putting on her husband’s coat when hers would have been on the next peg! Maybe she was a cross-dresser?

Nothing about the sneak thief theory adds up.

[RodCrosby]

I guess I should add

other valuables and monies not stolen.

Yes that's right. Anything else?

Well we have the murder occurring in the parlour, and the somewhat burnt skirt and mackintosh.

Anything else?

[etenguy]

@Herlock

I have some sympathy with the idea that someone set up a robbery, perhaps not as bright as we give them credit for. It could have been as simple as:
1. we'll get Wallace out of the way by sending him on business to A - we can phone him at his chess club.
2. you turn up as the bloke we sent Wallace to meet and get the money (it's here)
3. because they know me, I'll set myself up with an alibi.
Then it all went wrong.

I'm not entirely convinced, but I don't rule it out. I am more inclined to murder being the intent but struggle with Wallace as the killer for reasons I mentioned earlier.

As with any theory - challenge and a spirited defence help us to confirm or dismiss a theory. I'm up for that. I appreciate it has spilled over into a more personal issue with you and Rod, which is a shame as I think you both have great knowledge and insight - but these things happen.