Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi eten
while I find the Parry/accomplice theory intriguing, I dont buy this particular scenario. to plan something like this and to think you can steal the money without her knowledge is ludicrous IMHO. If this theory is right, more than likely knocking her out or controlling her during the robbery was probably the plan.


to me the evidence points to it-she puts on the mac to let the person in, shows them to the parlor and while she is lighting the fire, he wacks her. would explain the burnt mac as well. and perhaps she dosnt go out as easily and or fights back and it gets out of control. makes much more sense to me.

it explains a lot of the other evidence as well-the spilt coins, missing poker, broken cabinet door.

Two questions to ask then Abby, if Julia put the coat on or around her shoulders to let someone in at the front door, why didn’t she have it on when she fell or how did it manage to get bunched up beneath her?

Also with her own coat(s) available (possibly even on the adjacent hook) why would she pick up William’s? Firstly William said that he’d never seen her in a mackintosh which points to the fact that she didn’t own one so we can’t say that she’d picked it up by mistake. Secondly, in Rod’s scenario he obviously saw the problem here and I don’t think is ‘scent of William’ can be taken seriously by any stretch.

So were left with the question of how the mackintosh got beneath Julia. My suggestion is a very simple one and I really don’t see why anyone should have an issue with it....Wallace used it to shield himself from blood spatter and the reason that he pushed it under Julia’s body was that he thought that it would cause the traces of blood spatter to be smeared.

I think this is a far more convincing explaination than Rod’s ‘I’m just popping out to get Tiddles’ fantasy. At the very, very least it explains why the mackintosh ended up beneath Julia’s body.

[Abby Normal]

Two questions to ask then Abby, if Julia put the coat on or around her shoulders to let someone in at the front door, why didn’t she have it on when she fell or how did it manage to get bunched up beneath her?

Also with her own coat(s) available (possibly even on the adjacent hook) why would she pick up William’s? Firstly William said that he’d never seen her in a mackintosh which points to the fact that she didn’t own one so we can’t say that she’d picked it up by mistake. Secondly, in Rod’s scenario he obviously saw the problem here and I don’t think is ‘scent of William’ can be taken seriously by any stretch.

So were left with the question of how the mackintosh got beneath Julia. My suggestion is a very simple one and I really don’t see why anyone should have an issue with it....Wallace used it to shield himself from blood spatter and the reason that he pushed it under Julia’s body was that he thought that it would cause the traces of blood spatter to be smeared.

I think this is a far more convincing explaination than Rod’s ‘I’m just popping out to get Tiddles’ fantasy. At the very, very least it explains why the mackintosh ended up beneath Julia’s body.

hi HS
as you know, Im very up in the air in who killed her-I still lean toward wallace but only slighty-Im still at around 40% wallace 30% parry/and or accomplice 30 % unsub.
so assuming parry/accomplice did it:

Two questions to ask then Abby, if Julia put the coat on or around her shoulders to let someone in at the front door, why didn’t she have it on when she fell or how did it manage to get bunched up beneath her?

I don't know-but it just ended up that way during the attack. if she put it all the way on-arms though the sleeves -she would have probably still have it on when found. around the shoulders could account for it being still not worn but bunched up under her.

Plus it fits with a sequence of events I have in mind if it was the parry/accomplice scenario.

Also with her own coat(s) available (possibly even on the adjacent hook) why would she pick up William’s? Firstly William said that he’d never seen her in a mackintosh which points to the fact that she didn’t own one so we can’t say that she’d picked it up by mistake. Secondly, in Rod’s scenario he obviously saw the problem here and I don’t think is ‘scent of William’ can be taken seriously by any stretch.

my wife and kids will sometimes grab my jackets to put on so i dont find it particularly odd julia would, especially if its just a temp thing.

S

o were left with the question of how the mackintosh got beneath Julia. My suggestion is a very simple one and I really don’t see why anyone should have an issue with it....Wallace used it to shield himself from blood spatter and the reason that he pushed it under Julia’s body was that he thought that it would cause the traces of blood spatter to be smeared.

yes of course. if Wallace did it I agree.

overall when I balance everything and try to see if the mac points to one or anothers guilt as a clue it dosnt point one way or another strongly to me.

just slightly to Wallace IMHO because as ive said before-simply it was his.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. hi HS
as you know, Im very up in the air in who killed her-I still lean toward wallace but only slighty-Im still at around 40% wallace 30% parry/and or accomplice 30 % unsub.
so assuming parry/accomplice did it:

Hi Abby,

I’m at a conservative 90%+ on Wallace

I don’t give any other option any credence.

[etenguy]

Hi Abby,

I’m at a conservative 90%+ on Wallace

I don’t give any other option any credence.

Hey Herlock

I've yet to come to any conclusion about who killed Julia Wallace. As a Wallace as killer proponent, how does your timeline work for the murder?

[moste]

Hi Abby,

I’m at a conservative 90%+ on Wallace

I don’t give any other option any credence.

I figure around 90% Wallace . On his own 70%. 20% with an accomplice with a car. Using my previously suggested method.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hey Herlock

I've yet to come to any conclusion about who killed Julia Wallace. As a Wallace as killer proponent, how does your timeline work for the murder?

Hi Eten,

6.00 - 6.15 (possibly earlier) > Wallace sets the scene. He takes the money from the cash box dropping a few coins to make it look like the killer was in a hurry. (If Julia sees them it’s no problem - Wallace just says ‘oh, I dropped some coins earlier and I thought I’d picked them all up.’ He pulls off the cupboard door pretending that it came off when he’d opened it, telling Julia to leave it where it was and that he would try and fix it tomorrow. He goes upstairs to get ready for his ‘excursion.’ He takes a bottle of chemicals from his lab and puts it next to the bath

Around 6.30 > Alan Close arrives to deliver the milk (confirmed by Mrs Johnston who had her milk delivered at the same time.)

Around 6.35/6.37 > Close leaves (confirmed by the Holme’s who heard the door close). Whilst Julia was taking in the milk Wallace came downstairs and went into the Parlour with his shirt sleeves rolled up. When he hears the door close he calls out to Julia “would you bring my mackintosh in dear.” Julia brings in the coat, William is at the mirror checking his tie. She hands him his coat. As he bends to pick up the bar the coat dangles in the fire. They both try and put it out. Julia’s skirt is singed in the process. Wallace hits her with the bar and she falls to the ground. He takes the mackintosh and drapes it over his left forearm; holding it in place with his left hand. He kneels over Julia’s legs, lifts his left arm up level with his nose so that the coat hangs to the ground and rains down the rest of the blows. He wipes the bar on the mackintosh and pushes the mackintosh under Julia’s body smearing the blood spatter.

Its now 6.37/6.39

He goes into the kitchen where he’s left an old newspaper on the table. He puts the bar onto it and heads upstairs to the bathroom.

It’s now 6.38/6.40

He has blood on his right hand/arm. He kneels at the side of the bath and washes off the blood using the nailbrush to be thorough. He pours some of the chemical into the bath then wipes it as dry as he can with a cloth or a towel. He returns the chemical bottle to his lab and goes downstairs.

It’s now 6.42/6.44

He wraps the bar in the newspaper, turns off the lights, puts on his coat and leaves.

It’s 6.43/6.45 > It was agreed that Wallace had to be going by 6.50 latest so we have 5 minutes leeway.

Yes, the weapon was never found. That doesn’t mean that Wallace didn’t dispose of it . It equally could mean...he disposed of it and it was never found. I don’t care how thoroughly the police searched; things hidden sometimes aren’t found. Rod likes this ‘never found’ weapon point. It’s interesting that he takes every opportunity of telling us how corrupt and inept the police were and yet when it comes to the search for the weapon they are the most rigorous of public servants!

The murder is vicious; it appears ‘personal,’ fuelled by emotions like anger or resentment. Only Wallace could have these emotions toward Julia. No one else knew her well enough.
Only Wallace could have come up with the Qualtrough Plan and been absolutely certain of its success. Anyone else would have been relying on swathes of good fortune.
Only Wallace knew that neither Beattie or anyone else at the club knew his address.
Only Wallace had a convincing reason for turning off the lights.
Only Wallace has a convincing reason for removing the weapon from the scene.
Only Wallace could have known that he’d show so much perseverance in looking for MGE even after being told, more than once, that it didn’t exist.
Why did he keep asking conductors and inspectors about MGE and telling everyone that he was ‘a stranger in these parts’ as if he was in some foreign land?
Only Wallace can be placed at the crime scene.
Wallace told Beattie and Caird that the police had cleared him. A lie.
Wallace made out that he was a complete stranger in the environs of Menlove Gardens. A lie.
Why was Parry ever questioned as he wasn’t know to rob houses and he wasn’t violent? Because Wallace pointed the police in his direction.
Why did a man who suspected his beloved wife to have been the victim of foul play walk past the door to the Parlour (which would have taken all of a minute to check) to go upstairs?

There’s more of course. Parry’s plan relying on chance. Parry’s alibi. The world’s most unbelievable confession.

For me every single aspect of the case points to Wallace and no one else. Of course some of the points aren’t huge ones but when taken as a whole, for me and many others, it’s Wallace by a country mile.

[etenguy]

I figure around 90% Wallace . On his own 70%. 20% with an accomplice with a car. Using my previously suggested method.

Hi moste

How do you square the murder timings for Wallace as killer?

[harry]

Etenguy,
If Parry was clever enough to lure Wallace out of the house,then why not lure Julia out also.A simple "Mrs wallace your husband has met with an accident and is at number so and so"was all that would be needed by the associate.How long would it then take to break in and steal the cash box?
Why light a fire,when there was a fire and a warm kitchen to take a visitor to?Or why let Julia light a fire before striking her.Why not overpower her and tie her up.Why continue to strike her.
There are so many holes in this visitor at the front door,I can't credit that posters would pursue it.

There was no evidence that any visitor was at the Wallace house after 6.45,and no evidence of any visitor from the time wallace arrived home from work,untill he left at 6.45.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

6.00 - 6.15 (possibly earlier) > Wallace sets the scene. He takes the money from the cash box dropping a few coins to make it look like the killer was in a hurry. (If Julia sees them it’s no problem - Wallace just says ‘oh, I dropped some coins earlier and I thought I’d picked them all up.’ He pulls off the cupboard door pretending that it came off when he’d opened it, telling Julia to leave it where it was and that he would try and fix it tomorrow. He goes upstairs to get ready for his ‘excursion.’ He takes a bottle of chemicals from his lab and puts it next to the bath

Around 6.30 > Alan Close arrives to deliver the milk (confirmed by Mrs Johnston who had her milk delivered at the same time.)

Around 6.35/6.37 > Close leaves (confirmed by the Holme’s who heard the door close). Whilst Julia was taking in the milk Wallace came downstairs and went into the Parlour with his shirt sleeves rolled up. When he hears the door close he calls out to Julia “would you bring my mackintosh in dear.” Julia brings in the coat, William is at the mirror checking his tie. She hands him his coat. As he bends to pick up the bar the coat dangles in the fire. They both try and put it out. Julia’s skirt is singed in the process. Wallace hits her with the bar and she falls to the ground. He takes the mackintosh and drapes it over his left forearm; holding it in place with his left hand. He kneels over Julia’s legs, lifts his left arm up level with his nose so that the coat hangs to the ground and rains down the rest of the blows. He wipes the bar on the mackintosh and pushes the mackintosh under Julia’s body smearing the blood spatter.

Its now 6.37/6.39

He goes into the kitchen where he’s left an old newspaper on the table. He puts the bar onto it and heads upstairs to the bathroom.

It’s now 6.38/6.40

He has blood on his right hand/arm. He kneels at the side of the bath and washes off the blood using the nailbrush to be thorough. He pours some of the chemical into the bath then wipes it as dry as he can with a cloth or a towel. He returns the chemical bottle to his lab and goes downstairs.

It’s now 6.42/6.44

He wraps the bar in the newspaper, turns off the lights, puts on his coat and leaves.

It’s 6.43/6.45 > It was agreed that Wallace had to be going by 6.50 latest so we have 5 minutes leeway.

Yes, the weapon was never found. That doesn’t mean that Wallace didn’t dispose of it . It equally could mean...he disposed of it and it was never found. I don’t care how thoroughly the police searched; things hidden sometimes aren’t found. Rod likes this ‘never found’ weapon point. It’s interesting that he takes every opportunity of telling us how corrupt and inept the police were and yet when it comes to the search for the weapon they are the most rigorous of public servants!

The murder is vicious; it appears ‘personal,’ fuelled by emotions like anger or resentment. Only Wallace could have these emotions toward Julia. No one else knew her well enough.
Only Wallace could have come up with the Qualtrough Plan and been absolutely certain of its success. Anyone else would have been relying on swathes of good fortune.
Only Wallace knew that neither Beattie or anyone else at the club knew his address.
Only Wallace had a convincing reason for turning off the lights.
Only Wallace has a convincing reason for removing the weapon from the scene.
Only Wallace could have known that he’d show so much perseverance in looking for MGE even after being told, more than once, that it didn’t exist.
Why did he keep asking conductors and inspectors about MGE and telling everyone that he was ‘a stranger in these parts’ as if he was in some foreign land?
Only Wallace can be placed at the crime scene.
Wallace told Beattie and Caird that the police had cleared him. A lie.
Wallace made out that he was a complete stranger in the environs of Menlove Gardens. A lie.
Why was Parry ever questioned as he wasn’t know to rob houses and he wasn’t violent? Because Wallace pointed the police in his direction.
Why did a man who suspected his beloved wife to have been the victim of foul play walk past the door to the Parlour (which would have taken all of a minute to check) to go upstairs?

There’s more of course. Parry’s plan relying on chance. Parry’s alibi. The world’s most unbelievable confession.

For me every single aspect of the case points to Wallace and no one else. Of course some of the points aren’t huge ones but when taken as a whole, for me and many others, it’s Wallace by a country mile.

Thanks Herlock - the only issue I have with your account is using chemicals to eradicate all traces of blood quickly. In 1931 I don't think it was known how to do this (I think the reagent was discovered in the early 2000s).

[RodCrosby]

[cough]

[moste]

Hi moste

How do you square the murder timings for Wallace as killer?

Hi Etenguy

Ok, I’m relying on Roger Wilkes, times of Wallace’s movements. Noting that if Wallace’s last contact and thereby alibi ,was one ,Mr. Pinches at a newsagents ,opposite a post office he had called at, complaining that he had tried to find Menlove gardens east asking lots of people. Mr.Pinches let’s Wallace look through a directory, which of course revealed nothing.
Just on 8.00 pm. Wallace left this shop giving up on the search. If Wallace was here connected with a previously arranged rendezvous (an accomplice)and driven home, ‘post haste’ rather than the much slower tram, he could reasonably have been committing murder by 8 25pm, which is precisely the time that Mrs. Johnson in no. 31 claims she heard two thumps, which she took no notice of, believing it to be her old Dad taking off his boots.As we know it would be another 20 minutes before the Johnsons would meet with a distraught Wallace in the back yard. If this scenario can be countered by a tram ticket,transfer ticket,or person definitely identifying Wallace on his return tram journey other than the 20 year old woman in the next street ,who may have simply been trying to ‘get in on the act’. Then I can commit this theory to the garbage.

[moste]

Further to above .Mrs.Johnson alluded to Julia’s hand as still warm, when she bent down to hold it.
I’m not sure if she could have observed this if Julia had died two hours before.

[moste]

Further to above ,if it was as Herlock states, and Wallace murdered his wife two hours previously, could he have known that by leaving the gas fire on ,the body would have just stayed warm enough to affect the pathologists findings.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just another word on the Parkes fantasy.

It was said that three days later Parry went back to the garage with another man. Rod takes that to mean that it was to threaten Parkes into silence even though Parkes never says that. Two points....

1) How come Parry didn’t warn Parkes to keep quiet about his ‘confession’ on the night of the murder? It’s fairly obvious stuff.

2) Can we really believe that, three days later, Parry thought to himself “oh damn! I told Parkes about Julia Wallace, I’d better go and tell him to keep his mouth shut!”

What are we being asked to believe now?

That Parkes then gave Parry a list of the people he’d told in the last three days so that Parry could go and intimidate them all into silence? Who would wait three days to demand silence when Parkes could have told any number of people in the meantime?

I’m afraid it’s time to put this nonsense to bed and with it Parry’s involvement.

[RodCrosby]

Disinformation and Misrepresentation

From the Radio City broadcast, from award-winning journalists:-
"Any guilt that Parry felt would have been tinged with fear - the fear that Parkes may tell his story to the Police. John Parkes, realising this, began to fear for his own safety. These fears grew some time later when Parry re-appeared at the garage. This time he was not alone.

John Parkes: 'After the murder, and his opening his mouth to me, he suddenly came round with another chap. Then Mr. Atkinson and the sons said to me: 'You come down the back entry of a night, don't you, to work, in the dark? ... Well you don't come down any more in the dark!'"

All your false assertions were taken down on the other thread.

You won't have any better luck by repeating them on this one....