Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have two theories that might explain the murder of Julia Wallace. Both are plausible and possible, but there is no evidence which allows us to be conclusive about the killer's identity and choose between them. Both have strengths and weaknesses and both leave some questions unanswered.

Was it was Wallace? Was it Parry/accomplice? We can decide for ourselves which narrative best fits the evidence we have, but we cannot be definitive.

Or maybe it was someone else altogether, possibly a face from Julia's past. We have yet to find any evidence which would support such a theory, however.

If we believe Parkes, then the Parry/accomplice theory has to be more persuasive. But his evidence is untested and the contemporary police did not act on his information.

If we struggle to accept the evidence is convincing regarding the robbery, then Wallace as killer is more persuasive.

For my part, I cannot decide without further evidence.

Eten, I just don’t see how the Accomplice theory is plausible. I’ve listed more holes than a lump of Swiss cheese. We are asked to believe so much nonsense explained by ‘well he panicked.’

Surely this is the least believable ‘robbery.’ It convinces on no level.

I’m sorry but I just don’t see this as even close. Wallace is a country mile ahead as the likely killer.

[moste]

Answer: because he never went to pick anyone up.

Hi Herlock , not even perhaps Wallace ,from Menlove gardens at 8 00 on the dot.


__________________

[Herlock Sholmes]

Answer: because he never went to pick anyone up.

Hi Herlock , not even perhaps Wallace ,from Menlove gardens at 8 00 on the dot.


__________________

Hi Moste,

The problem is that Parry has an unshakeable alibi for that time period from four people. So unless they were providing him with false alibis Parry couldn’t have gone anywhere.

It’s also a problem to suggest that Wallace had an accomplice because the question could then be asked: why didn’t the Accomplice make the phone call after Wallace had arrived at the chess club which would have removed all doubt that Wallace might have made the call himself.

[ColdCaseJury]

Very briefly on these two good points raised by HS.

Why didn't an accomplice of Wallace's make the phone call?

a) Accomplice was unwilling or unable to make the call; OR
b) Wallace was unwilling to allow anyone else to make it given the crucial nature of the call.

For me, the problem with Wallace Accomplice is the night of the murder (Wallace surely would not have gone home after seeing his last customer - and would have made the Qualtrough appointment for 6:30pm).

Re: Parry Accomplice. We are asked to believe so much nonsense explained by ‘well he panicked’

In the reconstruction in my book (p. 124), I suggested Parry's accomplice had a short fuse who response to confrontation was violence. Now, in the case of Tim McEnany in the murder of Kathryn Bishop (1993), this is exactly what the police contended. McEnany was a stranger who "spontaneously decided to kill her" when she caught him stealing from her house. He was found guilty of a robbery that turned murderous. Now, some people believe that McEnany was framed... and he may be innocent... but my point here is only that it was plausible enough for a jury to believe and send him to life imprisonment. However, I concede that such cases are rare.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Very briefly on these two good points raised by HS.

Why didn't an accomplice of Wallace's make the phone call?

a) Accomplice was unwilling or unable to make the call; OR
b) Wallace was unwilling to allow anyone else to make it given the crucial nature of the call.

For me, the problem with Wallace Accomplice is the night of the murder (Wallace surely would not have gone home after seeing his last customer - and would have made the Qualtrough appointment for 6:30pm).

Re: Parry Accomplice. We are asked to believe so much nonsense explained by ‘well he panicked’

In the reconstruction in my book (p. 124), I suggested Parry's accomplice had a short fuse who response to confrontation was violence. Now, in the case of Tim McEnany in the murder of Kathryn Bishop (1993), this is exactly what the police contended. McEnany was a stranger who "spontaneously decided to kill her" when she caught him stealing from her house. He was found guilty of a robbery that turned murderous. Now, some people believe that McEnany was framed... and he may be innocent... but my point here is only that it was plausible enough for a jury to believe and send him to life imprisonment. However, I concede that such cases are rare.

Hi Antony,

Two points.

One doubt that I’ve expressed is that a sneak-thief would have gone into the house fully prepared to be and entirely sanguine about being able to have been identified by Julia should he have been arrested. No one heard Julia’s scream or any kind of commotion. Indeed it’s difficult to see what the frail, mousy Julia could have done to drive our sneak thief to such rage? If she’d caught him then all he’d have needed to do was flee. This was 1931 of course. No household security cameras, no CCTV. By the time the police might have finally been called he’d have been home with his feet up. In addition, if he lost control it’s even harder to explain why he might have calmly turned off the lights before he left.

The second point about using panic as an excuse is the taking away of the weapon. We know that a sneak thief would have worn gloves to avoid prints. We know that he wouldn’t have brought a weapon with him and so a household item was used. So we know that this weapon couldn’t have been connected to him by the police in any way. Taking it away was not only completely unnecessary but it increased the risk to himself. There is just no way that I can put this action down to ‘panic.’ Under no circumstances. Especially again if we consider that he was calm enough to turn off the lights before he left.

[moste]

Hi Moste,

The problem is that Parry has an unshakeable alibi for that time period from four people. So unless they were providing him with false alibis Parry couldn’t have gone anywhere.

It’s also a problem to suggest that Wallace had an accomplice because the question could then be asked: why didn’t the Accomplice make the phone call after Wallace had arrived at the chess club which would have removed all doubt that Wallace might have made the call himself.

Well I don’t know, when you involve an accomplice in this case it does start to sound too fantastic. I’m started to have doubts about the statement that Mrs. Johnston’s bent down out of compassion to hold her hand, to find it was still warm. Not because of the timing of the murder, just because , well,you would think seeing the awful carnage visited onto another person at close quarters ,she would have put her hands to her face and quickly gone back into the kitchen,and very likely have vomited.

[RodCrosby]

In other words "everyone who gave sworn testimony in the case is a liar"... so I can push my pet theory...

Will the last one outta here switch the lights off?

[harry]

That the murder was because Julia surprised the robber,or became aware the visitor had stolen something,takes some believing.It suggests (1) Julia allowed a person she didn't know or know well,to roam the house unattended,and cuught him replacing the cash box,or(2) he came back into the front room,which she had not left.and she became suspicious for some reason.

If (1) ,why did not Julia attempt to flee the house,but instead flee into the front room,and why did the thief not kill her there in the kitchen or passageway.

(2) If she had not left the front room,how would she know the money in the cash box had been taken?That being so why murder.

The more one considers a visitor bent on robbery,and Julia becoming aware of it,the more incredible it becomes.

[Abby Normal]

That the murder was because Julia surprised the robber,or became aware the visitor had stolen something,takes some believing.It suggests (1) Julia allowed a person she didn't know or know well,to roam the house unattended,and cuught him replacing the cash box,or(2) he came back into the front room,which she had not left.and she became suspicious for some reason.

If (1) ,why did not Julia attempt to flee the house,but instead flee into the front room,and why did the thief not kill her there in the kitchen or passageway.

(2) If she had not left the front room,how would she know the money in the cash box had been taken?That being so why murder.

The more one considers a visitor bent on robbery,and Julia becoming aware of it,the more incredible it becomes.

To me if it was not wallace, everything points to a plan of knocking her out and stealing the money. But something went wrong.. either she fought back and or the perp just lost it. Now the adrenaline flowing, perhaps panic which could explain spilt coins and broken cabinet door. And why none of the rest of the house and valuables were gone after. Perhaps even mistakenly taking away the murder weapon.

Seems to me she let in someone she knew, putting on the mac to answer the door and start a fire in the cold part of the house, and was attacked while lighting the fire, hence the burnt mac and skirt.

and if not parry/ accomplice.. then who??

Im thinking someone else that knew wallace well.

Anyone else fit the bill?

[harry]

Abby,
So your idea is that immediately on entering the house,the caller was shown into the front room,Julia lights the fire,and as soon as this was done she is attacked.Not much time for any conversation,or for the caller to evaluate the situation.He comes prepared to harm her,to knock her out if necessary,but instead savagely strikes her ten more times.Possible,but do you really believe that is what happened?

[Herlock Sholmes]

In other words "everyone who gave sworn testimony in the case is a liar"... so I can push my pet theory...

Will the last one outta here switch the lights off?

I’m unsure if this post is aimed at me or not? If it is, which people that gave sworn testimony are we talking about?

[Abby Normal]

Abby,
So your idea is that immediately on entering the house,the caller was shown into the front room,Julia lights the fire,and as soon as this was done she is attacked.Not much time for any conversation,or for the caller to evaluate the situation.He comes prepared to harm her,to knock her out if necessary,but instead savagely strikes her ten more times.Possible,but do you really believe that is what happened?

Hi harry
Well i lean towrd wallace, slightly. But if it wasnt him then yes this is the scenario that makes most sense to me, whether the parry/accomplice idea or an unsub.

[moste]

I’m unsure if this post is aimed at me or not? If it is, which people that gave sworn testimony are we talking about?

Hi Herlock , I know that phrase has been directed at yourself in a derogatory manner, but I believe it may have been a shot at me , for daring to suggest that a lady confronted with her next door neighbour, found prostrate on the parlour floor, with her brains literally bashed out of her skull, and blood all over the place,would actually shrink back and leave the scene as quickly as possible.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Herlock , I know that phrase has been directed at yourself in a derogatory manner, but I believe it may have been a shot at me , for daring to suggest that a lady confronted with her next door neighbour, found prostrate on the parlour floor, with her brains literally bashed out of her skull, and blood all over the place,would actually shrink back and leave the scene as quickly as possible.

but whats your point moste? she didn't do that though did she?

[moste]

but whats your point moste? she didn't do that though did she?

Apparently, I read it somewhere , and
Rod if I get the gist has her making that statement in court, If she did I just think she may have wanted the jury to perceive what a wonderfully compassionate woman this is. My point is , If her hand was warm ,then she couldn’t have been dead for two hours as Macfall reported.This in turn blows the idea that Wallace killed his wife before he left for Menlove gardens, Since I believe Wallace to be guilty, he must have done it about 8 15 / 20 ish.