Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Abby Normal]

question:

if it wasn't Wallace-then why the Q call scheme? why not just hit when Wallace was at work?


cover of darkness perhaps? its the only thing I can think of.

[Herlock Sholmes]

question:

if it wasn't Wallace-then why the Q call scheme? why not just hit when Wallace was at work?


cover of darkness perhaps? its the only thing I can think of.

I suppose that this can be traced back to trying to explain why the cash box had been returned to its shelf. The Accomplice theory has the mysterious Qualtrough as a sneak-thief taking the cash whilst Julia was elsewhere in the house. He puts the box back on the shelf hoping to leave the house without Julia knowing that they had been robbed. The plan goes wrong when she either catches him in the act or becomes suspicious of him for some reason leading him to bludgeon her to death. Of course this raises many questions. And as we know Abby, a scenario isn’t a solution.

[cobalt]

RodCrosby,

Many thanks for the detailed testimony given by the Wallace's house cleaner at trial.

The most obvious murder weapon would be the one nearest at hand, which was the iron bar from the parlour. Moste thinks this would not be sufficient to bludgeon a person to death, but if held tightly it would be effective as any cosh I think.

Or did the murderer nip into the kitchen to select the poker which would make it easier to finish he job? That makes two murder weapons to be disposed of, and as I said previously, Wallace's briefcase is staring to bulge at the seams.

It still seems unlikely that two weapons were used, so why the need to remove them both? It has been suggested that the removal of the items was a red herring; if Wallace was guilty that means he now has three weapons concealed about his person or in his briefcase as he clanks his way to the tram.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Only one weapon would have been used. But a question worth repeating is, why would a sneak-thief, wearing gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints, carry away an iron bar covered in blood and bone when that bar couldn’t be connected to him in any way? The old chestnut ‘he panicked’ has been suggested but he obviously didn’t panic when he went around turning off the lights.

[cobalt]

On balance there is slightly more reason for Wallace to remove a murder weapon- it did not have anyone else's prints on it- than an intruder if that person wore gloves. If Julia opened the door to someone she knew however, I think that person would have removed any gloves when inside the house. That would certainly apply if they rifling money from a tin.

I still can't see why two potential weapons were removed from the house, either of which would have been incriminating if found on the culprit.

[moste]

I suppose that this can be traced back to trying to explain why the cash box had been returned to its shelf. The Accomplice theory has the mysterious Qualtrough as a sneak-thief taking the cash whilst Julia was elsewhere in the house. He puts the box back on the shelf hoping to leave the house without Julia knowing that they had been robbed. The plan goes wrong when she either catches him in the act or becomes suspicious of him for some reason leading him to bludgeon her to death. Of course this raises many questions. And as we know Abby, a scenario isn’t a solution.

Lets face it, the cash box thing is either (a) It was Parry ,or Parry accomplice, or (b) Wallace.
No one else would know to zoom in on the cash box, and not bother with other goodies around the place.

[moste]

RodCrosby,

Many thanks for the detailed testimony given by the Wallace's house cleaner at trial.

The most obvious murder weapon would be the one nearest at hand, which was the iron bar from the parlour. Moste thinks this would not be sufficient to bludgeon a person to death, but if held tightly it would be effective as any cosh I think.

Or did the murderer nip into the kitchen to select the poker which would make it easier to finish he job? That makes two murder weapons to be disposed of, and as I said previously, Wallace's briefcase is staring to bulge at the seams.

It still seems unlikely that two weapons were used, so why the need to remove them both? It has been suggested that the removal of the items was a red herring; if Wallace was guilty that means he now has three weapons concealed about his person or in his briefcase as he clanks his way to the tram.

It probably would work admirably as a cosh, but I don't think it suits when reading the pathologists report.
clanking his way to the tram. hA hA hA that's FUNNY.

[moste]

It probably would work admirably as a cosh, but I don't think it suits when reading the pathologists report.
clanking his way to the tram. hA hA hA that's FUNNY.

This is the pathologists summing up after completing his post mortem .

"I am of the opinion that death was due to fracture of the skull by someone striking the deceased three or four times with terrific force, with a hard large-headed instrument."
Note, 'death was due to.' He doesn't go on to say the head actually received up to eleven blows.

[moste]

If the removal of the fire irons and cupboard door, the money taken, and the money not taken ,and the general lay out as it was found was designed to confuse and confound, it certainly seems to have worked on this thread!

[moste]

2. Why would Parry be stupid enough to mention a 21st birthday during the Qualtrough phone call and then be forced to admit that he’d been discussing a 21st birthday on the night of the murder?

What, WALLACE AS Qualtrough you mean? edging Parry into the frame.as with cash box seven feet high on top shelf. and him one of very few people Julia would let into the house. Makes sense.

[NickB]

I still think the most likely scenario is that the robber smashed the cabinet first. He found nothing in there, then looked around and saw the money box. There was some money in there which he took. Although it was a disappointing haul, he thought the contents indicated that it was their main stash and therefore decided to quit.

Admittedly I would not expect a robber to replace the money box on the shelf. But I think there is a danger of escalating something that is unexpected to something that would not have happened.

And I think there is a contradiction in saying Wallace had carefully planned everything yet replaced the box out of habit. Similarly with the bar and poker, if he had planned it surely he could have prepared a better explanation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I still think the most likely scenario is that the robber smashed the cabinet first. He found nothing in there, then looked around and saw the money box. There was some money in there which he took. Although it was a disappointing haul, he thought the contents indicated that it was their main stash and therefore decided to quit.

Admittedly I would not expect a robber to replace the money box on the shelf. But I think there is a danger of escalating something that is unexpected to something that would not have happened.

And I think there is a contradiction in saying Wallace had carefully planned everything yet replaced the box out of habit. Similarly with the bar and poker, if he had planned it surely he could have prepared a better explanation.

Doesn’t this scenario presuppose that the intruder killed Julia first and so suggests premeditation as it’s unlikely that he’d have wrenched off a cupboard door with the noise involved and the chance of Julia seeing it? If Julia was dead it’s difficult for me to see why he didn’t do a more extensive search for cash and valuables after his disappointing haul. Julia’s bag was on a chair in the kitchen for example.

I take your point Nick about Wallace returning the box to the shelf but I have to say that those proposing Parry or an accomplice often resort to ‘well he panicked’ for some unlikely facts. Why did the accomplice carry away the weapon - he panicked. Why did Parry allegedly spill the beans to Parkes - he panicked. Why did the accomplice kill Julia when, all along, he knew that Julia would have been able to identify him - he panicked. So I’ll use my ‘he panicked’ lifeline on this question. Close turned up later than expected and so Wallace, with one eye on the clock, panicked and returned the box to the shelf by force of habit.

Alternatively, and this has been mentioned before, Wallace might have already had an eye on Parry as a scapegoat for the crime. What kind of intruder might have returned the cash box to the shelf? One that Julia had known and let in and one that might have tried to steal the cash without her knowing.

[NickB]

If Julia was dead it’s difficult for me to see why he didn’t do a more extensive search ...

If Julia was dead its easy for me to see why he didn't want to hang around.

[Abby Normal]

Parry often gets praised as a clever planner. I can’t see it myself.

1. Why would Parry come up with a plan where it would have been obvious to the police that the thief knew where the cash box was so that he could sneak straight to it without Julia knowing, remove the cash and return it to the shelf?

2. Why would Parry be stupid enough to mention a 21st birthday during the Qualtrough phone call and then be forced to admit that he’d been discussing a 21st birthday on the night of the murder?

3. Why would Parry leave a message for Qualtrough at the chess club when one of the first questions that the police would ask would be “who knew that Wallace frequented the club?” Especially when Parry’s drama group rehearsed at the same cafe.

4. If it’s a possibility that Parry might have been aware that Julia was reluctant to let just anyone in when William wasn’t there then surely he might have been aware that he’d be on any list of ‘possibles.’

5. Parry had already been responsible for money going missing whilst collecting on Wallace’s round. More reason to bring him into the frame.

How stupid was Parry? Surely he couldn’t have picked a worse target or plan?

Cue the parrot “ yawn, yawn, misinformation, disinformation, Pretty Polly.”

HI HS

Why would Parry be stupid enough to mention a 21st birthday during the Qualtrough phone call and then be forced to admit that he’d been discussing a 21st birthday on the night of the murder?

a simple slip up when asked to call back?

to me this is very big red flag pointing to parry. I mean what are the chances?

[RodCrosby]

Answer (yawn...)

Sometimes, the Police are not as bright as the criminal (even when the criminal makes slips), and;

some people on the internet are even less bright...