Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

So Wallace, parry and the Johnston’s are all in on it? Wow that’s quite a story? What’s in it for parry and the Johnston’s?

That's speculation.

By odds Parry is the most likely caller, I feel he called on the orders of William who may have paid him (again there was a discrepancy in his Pru pay in after Julia's murder - who knows what happened to it, but that is a fact). There's no saying Parry knew Julia was going to be killed when he made the call, and based on the giving of a calendar and Wallace referring to Parry as a family friend, I think they were on good terms. I don't think this was a burglary gone wrong, and I doubt he had reason to want her dead. There's many reasons this looks like an assassination. And a lone burglar is as I've said, clearly logically and objectively close to impossible if it was an unknown intruder.

Johnston is a possibility for the neighborhood burglar. The home he was housesitting was robbed while the occupants were away for one thing, and apparently the crime scenes at other homes on the street were identical. I haven't seen the case files but some who have say this is a fact (key is that only one item was taken from a container that was replaced, and stuff thrown around in the bedroom randomly).

If he really was the burglar that's a key opportunity for blackmail. There are several ways William could potentially have found this out. For one thing Flo and Julia were in fact friends, secondly they housesat for Wallace as well, and had something been taken like at the other home they were housesitting he could have figured out what happened.

Even if William killed her himself I think he had Gordon call. His parents attempted to coerce an alibi supposedly. I question why he wanted Lily to fake an alibi for him if he already had one with the Brines. I don't think he killed her, there's a number of reasons. But I question all of his alibis and suspect they may have been coerced.

However the appearance of the Johnstons and their story is undeniably odd. Their testimony at time is either false, contradictory, or unlikely. Many examples including the few listed. Apparently the daughter they were visiting claimed she was NOT expecting their visit. Johnston started his shifts at the dock very early, I think he had to get ready at 4 AM, a 9 PM visit is a tad peculiar. And again they left the home alone out the back, so were planning to apparently leave their yard unbolted, even though they could easily have left out the front door or had a relative follow them out to bolt the yard. They had also showered and changed their clothes. The latter would be expected but still.

It is far more difficult for, say, Marsden to escape the scene without being spotted. For Johnston escape is VERY trivial. Marsden could have done it but escape for him is undeniably more difficult.

The recreation as proposed is a solution with no real plot holes except wondering why anyone would help him...

[Abby Normal]

Wallace is the only one who needs to create his own alibi.

Would someone else really wager on Wallace falling for "Qualtrough" and wandering the streets for 25 Menlove Gardens East instead of giving up or finding out sooner that it was bogus. As opposed to waiting for Wallace to leave for chess club and then knocking the door or breaking in. Julia might immediately answer the door if she thought it was just Wallace who had forgotten his keys or something.

yes agree. and that the Q call came from a box near Wallace home and on his way to the club is a bigee for me too.
also, another give away-Wallace dosnt say anything about the missing bar and rod until his maid brings it up.

[Harry D]

even if it was Wallace its far too convoluted a plot! the whole things a goat rope!
but I somewhat agree-I lean toward Wallace.

Wallace is the only one who needs to create his own alibi.

Would someone else really wager on Wallace falling for "Qualtrough" and wandering the streets for 25 Menlove Gardens East instead of giving up or finding out sooner that it was bogus. As opposed to waiting for Wallace to leave for chess club and then knocking the door or breaking in. Julia might immediately answer the door if she thought it was just Wallace who had forgotten his keys or something.

[Abby Normal]

I struggle to see how it could be anyone other than Wallace. It seems far too convoluted a plot from anyone else just to rob the place or bump off Wallace's old lady.

even if it was Wallace its far too convoluted a plot! the whole things a goat rope!
but I somewhat agree-I lean toward Wallace.

[Harry D]

I struggle to see how it could be anyone other than Wallace. It seems far too convoluted a plot from anyone else just to rob the place or bump off Wallace's old lady.

[Abby Normal]

Looking at the case facts in terms of circumstantial evidence in isolation here's what I think:

Gordon Parry was the most likely caller (it would be bad for William to risk lying about the tram route - even IF he knew the box was traced, but def if he didn't - since if he passed box he could claim he was stalked and the tram he took he would expect to be checked). I reckon Wallace went an odd route and Parry forked off to the right to the phone booth and William to the left to the tram stop. They may have spoken very briefly or him going that way may have simply been a signal. Parry barged in on Lily's lesson weirdly, faked an alibi, mentioned a 21st birthday in response to an unexpected question, and his timing from the box to Lily's matches up coincidentally. If they'd checked Wallace's chess club route and confirmed it, this would be more solid.

As for the triggerman Mr. Johnston has the absolute best opportunity to commit a murder and slip away unseen, as well as dispose of weaponry (the fact he worked on the docks may be relevant there?). He also has the best opportunity to get in unseen. Someone coming in the front door is highly risky, if it was someone known in the area especially as he may be recognized. Also after the killing the attacker then has to flee out the back door and then what? He can't take a tram. He has to run through blocks of streets at a time when people are still walking about... And if it was an unknown assailant they would flee when caught since there's no chance of being identified.

With Johnston he needs only slip out his back door, walk a few yards, and enter Wallace's. The gate would ofc be bolted normally, I suggest Wallace had to return home to let him in the back. Remember Wallace was iffy about whether the yard door was bolted, at first saying it was then that he doesn't know etc. He may even have let a second person in AS he was leaving, and told Julia to set up the parlor and he was just going to the outhouse or whatever. Then the second man (who for my liking is Johnston based SOLELY on opportunity to not only kill Julia but clean up too - remember when William returned if Marsden or whoever was still in there the Johnstons appeared too quickly for a cleanup to be possible) comes in and kills her with an unknown weapon.

Also the scene is so clinically clean in terms of the lack of bloody footprints and marks outside of the room and so on. In an unplanned attack especially you would expect bloody marks somewhere else in the home as the killer would be in a panicked state and want to get the hell out of there ASAP. This is something focused on by real homicide detectives when determining if there was an intruder or not, just so you know.

However if the Johnstons are involved, when they enter the home it allows Wallace time to clean things up, bloody fingerprints, shoeprints, etc. and Mr. Johnston notably dawdled when going to fetch help.

Mrs. Johnston put on a kitchen fire, she claims she just didn't know what to do with idle hands. However there is evidence of burning attempted on the parlor fireplace. If that proved ineffective, they may have used the far more efficient kitchen fireplace to completely eliminate certain pieces of evidence beyond any conceivable recognition.

Also keep in mind their lies and contradictions. They had housesat for the Wallaces, this involved opening and shutting curtains in the home to give an illusion of occupancy etc. yet they claim to have never been in the parlor before (or any room but the parlor, I forget which). John claimed William forced entry and directly contradicted this. There are many more points of interest here. In fact if they're involved EVERYTHING that happened upon William's return to the moment the police arrived is called into question. Arthur Johnston in the room directly adjacent to the Wallace's parlor heard NOTHING.

NOW, supposedly a home was burgled earlier on the street, which happened when the occupants were away and the Johnstons were housesitting for them. The crime scene was nearly 1:1 identical. It's also important to note that Johnston had housesat for the Wallace's, and had William found anything missing he may have put 2 and 2 together and figured out who had committed the robberies on the street. A perfect angle for blackmail.

This explains almost everything by the way. Parry may have been intended as a fall guy. The call may even have been made on a false pretext or for money without stating a reason. Remember Crewe reported a discrepancy in the amount William paid into the Pru.

The Qualtrough alias was used so if it went south he could make it seem like Gordon and his friend Marsden had conspired together to get back at the Pru. Marsden's alibi is pathetic but there really was a bad flu epidemic at the time. And btw someome show me HOW exactly that chess club notice shows Wallace hadn't attended? Because it's indecipherable nonsense that wouldn't make sense to an outsider.

I PERSONALLY peg the motice as sexually oriented. Either discovery of an affair (a popular theory at the time), or discovery of bisexual behavior. You may disagree but that's what I favor.

Tell me that's not a good solution though.

---

So the overview of the events in my current theory:

Julia finds out Wallace is having an affair. This is the catalyst of the murder. The diary entries may have been falsified NOW or on the day of the killing, but I feel it's very coincidental he should make a diary entry about how he was so scared she might have been killed only a week prior to her death (calls to mind killers who have told people they had psychic visions or feelings their loved one was going to die shortly before it happened).

Wallace gets Parry to make a call, he may not have known what was going to happen or may have been paid off (with or without knowing Julia would be killed). William takes the tram in the opposite direction. Parry MAY have said East by mistake (instead of West) but that's up for debate. I think William was banking on this exonerating him when Beattie would inevitably verify it was not his voice.

Wallace tells friends he may not even go on the trip. I feel he may have left the options open to back out. He was seen crying the next day reportedly, so maybe he tried to reconcile with Julia and it was a dead end so he had to follow through with the plan.

So he returns home. At an arranged time he tells Julia to light the fireplace, goes into the yard and unbolts the back door. Mr Johnston easily slips in unseen, in through the back door, into the parlor and bludgeons her to death. As this is happening William is already hurrying to the tram. The crime scene may have been pre-arranged since there was no sound of a cupboard door crashing to the floor heard by the Holme family in the other adjoining house. Once Julia is killed, Johnston simply slips out the back, walks a few steps and is back in his own yard with almost no chance of being spotted.

William now begins manufacturing his alibi. His plan is to ask around, call at 25 West, etc. then go to Mr. Crewes home and spend time there visiting. I believe Wallace for some reason was waiting until 8 pm and wanted to be seen out until then, perhaps because of an arranged time with the Johnstons when he would be returning.

He comes home and as arranged the Johnstons make the discovery of the body with him. With this time it allows a brief cleanup operation to take place should it be necessary. Everything would be checked carefully, handles wiped clean, etc. Remember the only identifiable suspect fingerprints in the home were of William and the Johnstons, both of whom fortunately have an excuse for the presence of those prints.

So Wallace, parry and the Johnston’s are all in on it? Wow that’s quite a story? What’s in it for parry and the Johnston’s?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Or the wait until 8 PM could have been to give the attacker time to clean up on their own and dispose of ****. Then Wallace comes home and just checks everything is in order before John goes for the cops.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Looking at the case facts in terms of circumstantial evidence in isolation here's what I think:

Gordon Parry was the most likely caller (it would be bad for William to risk lying about the tram route - even IF he knew the box was traced, but def if he didn't - since if he passed box he could claim he was stalked and the tram he took he would expect to be checked). I reckon Wallace went an odd route and Parry forked off to the right to the phone booth and William to the left to the tram stop. They may have spoken very briefly or him going that way may have simply been a signal. Parry barged in on Lily's lesson weirdly, faked an alibi, mentioned a 21st birthday in response to an unexpected question, and his timing from the box to Lily's matches up coincidentally. If they'd checked Wallace's chess club route and confirmed it, this would be more solid.

As for the triggerman Mr. Johnston has the absolute best opportunity to commit a murder and slip away unseen, as well as dispose of weaponry (the fact he worked on the docks may be relevant there?). He also has the best opportunity to get in unseen. Someone coming in the front door is highly risky, if it was someone known in the area especially as he may be recognized. Also after the killing the attacker then has to flee out the back door and then what? He can't take a tram. He has to run through blocks of streets at a time when people are still walking about... And if it was an unknown assailant they would flee when caught since there's no chance of being identified.

With Johnston he needs only slip out his back door, walk a few yards, and enter Wallace's. The gate would ofc be bolted normally, I suggest Wallace had to return home to let him in the back. Remember Wallace was iffy about whether the yard door was bolted, at first saying it was then that he doesn't know etc. He may even have let a second person in AS he was leaving, and told Julia to set up the parlor and he was just going to the outhouse or whatever. Then the second man (who for my liking is Johnston based SOLELY on opportunity to not only kill Julia but clean up too - remember when William returned if Marsden or whoever was still in there the Johnstons appeared too quickly for a cleanup to be possible) comes in and kills her with an unknown weapon.

Also the scene is so clinically clean in terms of the lack of bloody footprints and marks outside of the room and so on. In an unplanned attack especially you would expect bloody marks somewhere else in the home as the killer would be in a panicked state and want to get the hell out of there ASAP. This is something focused on by real homicide detectives when determining if there was an intruder or not, just so you know.

However if the Johnstons are involved, when they enter the home it allows Wallace time to clean things up, bloody fingerprints, shoeprints, etc. and Mr. Johnston notably dawdled when going to fetch help.

Mrs. Johnston put on a kitchen fire, she claims she just didn't know what to do with idle hands. However there is evidence of burning attempted on the parlor fireplace. If that proved ineffective, they may have used the far more efficient kitchen fireplace to completely eliminate certain pieces of evidence beyond any conceivable recognition.

Also keep in mind their lies and contradictions. They had housesat for the Wallaces, this involved opening and shutting curtains in the home to give an illusion of occupancy etc. yet they claim to have never been in the parlor before (or any room but the parlor, I forget which). John claimed William forced entry and directly contradicted this. There are many more points of interest here. In fact if they're involved EVERYTHING that happened upon William's return to the moment the police arrived is called into question. Arthur Johnston in the room directly adjacent to the Wallace's parlor heard NOTHING.

NOW, supposedly a home was burgled earlier on the street, which happened when the occupants were away and the Johnstons were housesitting for them. The crime scene was nearly 1:1 identical. It's also important to note that Johnston had housesat for the Wallace's, and had William found anything missing he may have put 2 and 2 together and figured out who had committed the robberies on the street. A perfect angle for blackmail.

This explains almost everything by the way. Parry may have been intended as a fall guy. The call may even have been made on a false pretext or for money without stating a reason. Remember Crewe reported a discrepancy in the amount William paid into the Pru.

The Qualtrough alias was used so if it went south he could make it seem like Gordon and his friend Marsden had conspired together to get back at the Pru. Marsden's alibi is pathetic but there really was a bad flu epidemic at the time. And btw someome show me HOW exactly that chess club notice shows Wallace hadn't attended? Because it's indecipherable nonsense that wouldn't make sense to an outsider.

I PERSONALLY peg the motice as sexually oriented. Either discovery of an affair (a popular theory at the time), or discovery of bisexual behavior. You may disagree but that's what I favor.

Tell me that's not a good solution though.

---

So the overview of the events in my current theory:

Julia finds out Wallace is having an affair. This is the catalyst of the murder. The diary entries may have been falsified NOW or on the day of the killing, but I feel it's very coincidental he should make a diary entry about how he was so scared she might have been killed only a week prior to her death (calls to mind killers who have told people they had psychic visions or feelings their loved one was going to die shortly before it happened).

Wallace gets Parry to make a call, he may not have known what was going to happen or may have been paid off (with or without knowing Julia would be killed). William takes the tram in the opposite direction. Parry MAY have said East by mistake (instead of West) but that's up for debate. I think William was banking on this exonerating him when Beattie would inevitably verify it was not his voice.

Wallace tells friends he may not even go on the trip. I feel he may have left the options open to back out. He was seen crying the next day reportedly, so maybe he tried to reconcile with Julia and it was a dead end so he had to follow through with the plan.

So he returns home. At an arranged time he tells Julia to light the fireplace, goes into the yard and unbolts the back door. Mr Johnston easily slips in unseen, in through the back door, into the parlor and bludgeons her to death. As this is happening William is already hurrying to the tram. The crime scene may have been pre-arranged since there was no sound of a cupboard door crashing to the floor heard by the Holme family in the other adjoining house. Once Julia is killed, Johnston simply slips out the back, walks a few steps and is back in his own yard with almost no chance of being spotted.

William now begins manufacturing his alibi. His plan is to ask around, call at 25 West, etc. then go to Mr. Crewes home and spend time there visiting. I believe Wallace for some reason was waiting until 8 pm and wanted to be seen out until then, perhaps because of an arranged time with the Johnstons when he would be returning.

He comes home and as arranged the Johnstons make the discovery of the body with him. With this time it allows a brief cleanup operation to take place should it be necessary. Everything would be checked carefully, handles wiped clean, etc. Remember the only identifiable suspect fingerprints in the home were of William and the Johnstons, both of whom fortunately have an excuse for the presence of those prints.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Btw I think it's not ever been noted before that the Johnston's were apparently going to leave their yard unsecured while going out visiting since nobody followed to bolt it behind them.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi guys - busy writing 4th book so I haven't peeked here for weeks. Please note the top half of cupboard door was broken and attached loosely by a hook. My understanding is that not much pressure was required for it to come apart. This does beg the question why Wallace said, "Look, they've wrenched that off." But it also could point to other scenarios, too.

How high up was the cupboard? Did part of it fall to the ground? Sound from this event was seemingly mysteriously absent. You'd think that'd be very noticeable to neighbors in terraced housing.

I am starting to form a new opinion based on the fact that Wallace apparently DID (!) write West and cross it out (when Beattie said East). IMO this is incredibly strong evidence since it's almost impossible to mishear west as east, and if he truly did not know the gardens at all he would have just written down east like it was nothing.

I think Gordon Parry made the phone call to the club, or was just incredibly unlucky with coincidences lining up. For example the timing from the phone booth to Lily's home (as well as the fact he was weirdly barging in mid-lesson) matches up, the 21st birthday mention, and his false alibi which of course is pretty damning.

I don't think Wallace would lie about the route he took on the chess club night (ESPECIALLY if he didn't know the box location was traced) because it is easily verified.

I suspect Wallace went the way he stated (how did his defense not try to prove this?!) while Parry went the opposite direction at the fork in the road in his car.

Gordon places the call so someone else can testify the information relayed and that the caller's voice is not William's.

On the night of the killing, I am beginning to form an opinion that Wallace did not kill his wife himself. However, for an outsider, coming through the front door would be EXTREMELY risky in any scenario due to the possibility of being heard or spotted. So I think Wallace may have returned home in order to let someone in through the back.

Considering the depth of detail he gave on Marsden this could be him (since him naming them is consistent with him either being innocent or KNOWING Parry and Marsden could not possibly have an alibi. He knew he waa under heavy suspicion by now. Him pressing Beattie for accuracy and the way he phrased it also seems to imply advanced knowledge of when the call came in.

I believe Wallace for some reason wanted to be seen to be out beyond 8 pm. I get this from the phrasing to the police officer. I think he was specifically waiting for 8 pm to pass for some reason. I think his initial idea was to search for the address then spend time at Crewe's home. But Crewe was unexpectedly not at home.

Wallacw returns home and is potentially spotted talking to someone in the entryway. It would've been nice had someone posted her FULL testimony considering there's information missing. Gannon once provided it privately to my friend but a long time ago. I would think the most important thing would be if she was able to accurately describe what he was wearing when she saw him.

So anyway... Wallace returns home, and as you know the Johnstons are sus as hell. The odds of the fact that when he returned he would, with perfect timing, have people there to discover the body with him AND that it wasn't just any neighbors but his next door neighbors is low. They were going visiting at an odd hour considering John's shift start time, and to see someone they were apparently moving in with the next day and who apparently claimed she had not been expecting them to visit that night.

Something else to remember. When the Johnston's left by the back door, they were alone and nobody followed them. This means they were going to go out and leave their yard door UNSECURED instead of getting a relative to bolt it behind them or going by the front door. This is unusual. Their testimony is unusual and inconsistent in a few places.

However you'd need to see the case files to really research these things.

There is almost ZERO information on Marsden but his alibi is pathetic. That said everyone did have flu around that time. He may have been uninvolved and the R M Qualtrough name was given to Parry to use to frame Marsden should things go south? Or he was legitimately involved... But someone seriously needs to clear the Johnstons because some of the stuff about them is weird and needs to be debunked or verified.

I'm gonna go with Julia finding out Wallace is having an affair, Parry calling, then either Johnston or Marsden killing her and staging a robbery. The mackintosh I think was NOT the one that was meant to be there. I think that was an error.

There are a few oddities in the case (like kinda bizarre stuff) that may be worth considering:

1. The totally pointless and random mention of the missing dog lash to police. Something apparently missing for 12 months.

2. The coincidental disappearance of the cat during weather where this would be abnormal.

3. The mackintosh and events surrounding that: "Her mackintosh- and my mackintosh", Flo and William both claiming to have said the same thing (I forgot what that was now).

4. Perhaps something revolving around the time of 8 pm that was important.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi guys - busy writing 4th book so I haven't peeked here for weeks. Please note the top half of cupboard door was broken and attached loosely by a hook. My understanding is that not much pressure was required for it to come apart. This does beg the question why Wallace said, "Look, they've wrenched that off." But it also could point to other scenarios, too.

Hi Antony,

If the cupboard was in poor condition this would have made it easier for Wallace to have pulled it off before Julia’s death. If it was poorly attached then it wouldn’t have required much explaining.

[ColdCaseJury]

The cupboard door is a problem. If Wallace was the murderer, we might surmise he would pull off the door as part of trying to suggest a burglary. It is only with extreme speculation we might explain the door if 'Qualtrough' or A N Other were attempting to be a sneak thief. Could it have been an accident? Difficult to see how, unless the door was open and Qualtrough crashed into it by accident, breaking the door and perhaps alerting Julia to a crime, or at least strange behaviour by her guest. Another flight of speculation is that Julia caught the sneak thief red handed and he first lashed out at Julia in the kitchen, the door broken during the initial attack, but this leaves Julia silent for longer and only raises questions about how she ended up in the parlour.

The easier explanation to accept is Wallace staging a burglary.

Hi guys - busy writing 4th book so I haven't peeked here for weeks. Please note the top half of cupboard door was broken and attached loosely by a hook. My understanding is that not much pressure was required for it to come apart. This does beg the question why Wallace said, "Look, they've wrenched that off." But it also could point to other scenarios, too.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

Id add that if Julia had caught the guy in the act, after he’d returned the box to the shelf, and then killed her, it’s difficult to see why he’d pull off the cupboard door? It’s unlikely that he would have attempted something so potentially noisy with Julia in the next room (although it might be suggested by some that she’d gone upstairs to the loo) If he had the time and the inclination to pull the cupboard door off why didn’t he make a search for cash and valuables to make up for his meagre haul?

The cupboard door is a problem. If Wallace was the murderer, we might surmise he would pull off the door as part of trying to suggest a burglary. It is only with extreme speculation we might explain the door if 'Qualtrough' or A N Other were attempting to be a sneak thief. Could it have been an accident? Difficult to see how, unless the door was open and Qualtrough crashed into it by accident, breaking the door and perhaps alerting Julia to a crime, or at least strange behaviour by her guest. Another flight of speculation is that Julia caught the sneak thief red handed and he first lashed out at Julia in the kitchen, the door broken during the initial attack, but this leaves Julia silent for longer and only raises questions about how she ended up in the parlour.

The easier explanation to accept is Wallace staging a burglary.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Although finding some attraction to the Accomplice Theory, I reach the conclusion on the basis of a balance of probabilities that the most likely murderer was Wallace.

Having said that, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the box not being taken and an extensive burglary not taking place. It is speculative but logical. It is not the only possibility, but goes:

The burglar was intending to target the premium takings at the beginning of the plan (which they had reason to believe was a sizeable amount although it didn't turn out that way).
With only Julia in the house, the plan may well have been to take the money without her knowing and replacing the box was to avoid Julia noticing it was missing before he was long gone.
After stealing the money that was in the box, Julia either caught him in the act or discovered the crime while the burglar was still in the house.
Perhaps threatening to cause a scene or calling the police, the burglar lashed out at her and killed her.
Being shook up by becoming a murderer, he left in a hurry in an emotional state.

The most serious challenge to the above scenario is why the neighbours heard nothing. Either Julia did scream or shout and the neighbours did not hear or she froze and didn't make a significant noise.

Hi Eten,

Id add that if Julia had caught the guy in the act, after he’d returned the box to the shelf, and then killed her, it’s difficult to see why he’d pull off the cupboard door? It’s unlikely that he would have attempted something so potentially noisy with Julia in the next room (although it might be suggested by some that she’d gone upstairs to the loo) If he had the time and the inclination to pull the cupboard door off why didn’t he make a search for cash and valuables to make up for his meagre haul?

[etenguy]

Someone proposing The Accomplice Theory would give you a reason WWH. For me the massive point against it being a robbery is the almost complete lack of an attempt to steal anything. With Julia dead and Wallace out of the way a burglar/murderer would have had plenty of time.

Although finding some attraction to the Accomplice Theory, I reach the conclusion on the basis of a balance of probabilities that the most likely murderer was Wallace.

Having said that, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the box not being taken and an extensive burglary not taking place. It is speculative but logical. It is not the only possibility, but goes:

The burglar was intending to target the premium takings at the beginning of the plan (which they had reason to believe was a sizeable amount although it didn't turn out that way).
With only Julia in the house, the plan may well have been to take the money without her knowing and replacing the box was to avoid Julia noticing it was missing before he was long gone.
After stealing the money that was in the box, Julia either caught him in the act or discovered the crime while the burglar was still in the house.
Perhaps threatening to cause a scene or calling the police, the burglar lashed out at her and killed her.
Being shook up by becoming a murderer, he left in a hurry in an emotional state.

The most serious challenge to the above scenario is why the neighbours heard nothing. Either Julia did scream or shout and the neighbours did not hear or she froze and didn't make a significant noise.