Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[etenguy]

Yes that's right. Anything else?

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

Anything else?

Nothing else I remember having significance without rechecking.

Oh - a spot of blood in the toilet.

[RodCrosby]

Yes, but that was a blood-red herring from the "Jiggery-Pokery" Brigade. Drunken Inspector Gold might have carried it up there when he went for a slash...

How about the (three, I think) coins scattered on the floor near the hearth in the middle kitchen?

[etenguy]

Yes, but that was a blood-red herring from the "Jiggery-Pokery" Brigade. Drunken Inspector Gold might have carried it up there when he went for a slash...

How about the (three, I think) coins scattered on the hearth in the middle kitchen?

I don't remember the three coins on the hearth - not sure of their significance. Possibly fell out of the mackintosh pocket.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, but that was a blood-red herring from the "Jiggery-Pokery" Brigade. Drunken Inspector Gold might have carried it up there when he went for a slash...

How about the (three, I think) coins scattered on the floor near the hearth in the middle kitchen?

Dropped by Wallace to make it look like the intruder was in a hurry and missed them. Simple.

[RodCrosby]

The intruder that was in so much of a hurry he had time to replace the cash-box on the shelf for no reason?

[RodCrosby]

I don't remember the three coins on the hearth - not sure of their significance. Possibly fell out of the mackintosh pocket.

No this is in the middle kitchen.

Mr. Roland Oliver proceeded to cross-examine witness [Supt. Moore] as to the cash-box and the coins which were found on the floor.

Alas, Wyndham-Brown's account does not give the details. But other authors say the coins were a half-crown and two shilling coins. [In today's money that would be about £12 in total, or say $15]

[Herlock Sholmes]

@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.

Cheers Eten,

You only have to read back on the other thread and to the examples that I posted earlier on this one to see what we’ve had to put up with over the last year. Rod’s ‘playing nice’ with you and Abby because he’s thinking ‘ I have two people here who are relatively new to the case.’ But as soon as you start challenging him, as AS, Caz and I have done you will see a different approach. We’ve always been willing to look at different views. My evidence for this is that I’m currently exchanging emails with Anthony. We disagree on quite a few issues but we’re discussing it in a civil way and without insults. Antony has an open mind. He feels that Rod’s theory is the likeliest but by no means proven. He accepts that Wallace might have been guilty. He fully accepts that some issues point more toward Wallace than anyone else. But Antony has an ‘agree to disagree’ mode which Rod lacks. He accepts no disagreement and resorts to the kind of comments that you’ve witnessed. It’s almost impossible to discus or to debate the case properly like this. Hence Antony’s absence.

It’s a pity but what can you do?

[etenguy]

No this is in the middle kitchen.

Mr. Roland Oliver proceeded to cross-examine witness [Supt. Moore] as to the cash-box and the coins which were found on the floor.

Alas, Wyndham-Brown's account does not give the details. But other authors say the coins were a half-crown and two shilling coins. [In today's money that would be about £12 in total, or say $15]

What significance do you place on the coins?

[RodCrosby]

Take no notice of this malicious rubbish.

Antony and I are in constant communication about everything, including the antics of several members of this forum, one of whom is no longer around...

The guy you're talking to wasted acreage of the other thread screeching that the notion my theory would be published by Antony [never mind endorsed] was a pack of lies...

Rhymes with knoll...

[RodCrosby]

What significance do you place on the coins?

Well, what scenario best fits the crime scene, bearing in mind Mrs. Johnston's testimony and John Parkes's detailed recollection?

[etenguy]

Cheers Eten,

You only have to read back on the other thread and to the examples that I posted earlier on this one to see what we’ve had to put up with over the last year. Rod’s ‘playing nice’ with you and Abby because he’s thinking ‘ I have two people here who are relatively new to the case.’ But as soon as you start challenging him, as AS, Caz and I have done you will see a different approach. We’ve always been willing to look at different views. My evidence for this is that I’m currently exchanging emails with Anthony. We disagree on quite a few issues but we’re discussing it in a civil way and without insults. Antony has an open mind. He feels that Rod’s theory is the likeliest but by no means proven. He accepts that Wallace might have been guilty. He fully accepts that some issues point more toward Wallace than anyone else. But Antony has an ‘agree to disagree’ mode which Rod lacks. He accepts no disagreement and resorts to the kind of comments that you’ve witnessed. It’s almost impossible to discus or to debate the case properly like this. Hence Antony’s absence.

It’s a pity but what can you do?

Antony is the author - ColdCaseJury? I like his website and idea - its quite ingenious.

I'm not quite in the same place as him yet - I'm not sure I think Rod's theory is the most likely, but recognise its merits. It stills seems to me murder was the prime motive, which points to Wallace and no other suspects are obvious - but I can't reconcile the timings and demeanour with Wallace being guilty.

[etenguy]

Well, what scenario best fits the crime scene, bearing in mind Mrs. Johnston's testimony and John Parkes's detailed recollection?

I don't find any significance between the coins and the crime. It would seem most likely they were dropped.

[RodCrosby]

Accidentally?, assuming for the moment your a) scenario

[etenguy]

Accidentally?, assuming for the moment your a) scenario

Possibly by accident during the crime

if a) then it might show someone rushing, the accomplice wanting to take the money and not worrying about a couple of coins.

But the same can be said of option b).

[RodCrosby]

To avoid confusion, let's just work through a) first.
Then we can look at b)

So the coins were on the floor, near the hearth, and the cash-box was replaced.

What does that suggest, purely from the standpoint of a)?