Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes I'm curious whether you'd think it was connected or a prank call? We have Parry as the caller so we're deciding between these in our view, but prefer the latter given the evidence.

If pushed, of the two options, I’d have to go with prank as I don’t for a minute think that Wallace had Parry as an accomplice. That said, I’d rate the prank call at around a thousand to one. I just can’t see Wallace acting on the spur of the moment like that. He would have had just 24 hours to plan and murder his wife and for much of this time he would have been at work.

We are being asked to believe that Parry played a pointless prank on a man that was simply an acquaintance. It wasn’t even a prank that he could have enjoyed by seeing his victims reaction to being tricked. Not only that, of all of the available phone boxes, he chooses the box that nearest to Wallace’s house and he times it just as William left the house. He then asks a completely pointless and illogical question which could only have added to Wallace’s suspicion about the call and increased his chance of not going. Also I’d ask why he chose a non-existent address? How could Parry have known that Wallace wasn’t completely familiar with the area and knew for a fact that there was no MGE? Or that a club member wouldn’t have been aware of its non-existance? If he wanted to ‘prank’ Wallace then why didn’t he simply give an address that existed? He could even have given the householders name in case Wallace checked a Directory. To be honest it would have been a pretty poor prank

[moste]

If pushed, of the two options, I’d have to go with prank as I don’t for a minute think that Wallace had Parry as an accomplice. That said, I’d rate the prank call at around a thousand to one. I just can’t see Wallace acting on the spur of the moment like that. He would have had just 24 hours to plan and murder his wife and for much of this time he would have been at work.

We are being asked to believe that Parry played a pointless prank on a man that was simply an acquaintance. It wasn’t even a prank that he could have enjoyed by seeing his victims reaction to being tricked. Not only that, of all of the available phone boxes, he chooses the box that nearest to Wallace’s house and he times it just as William left the house. He then asks a completely pointless and illogical question which could only have added to Wallace’s suspicion about the call and increased his chance of not going. Also I’d ask why he chose a non-existent address? How could Parry have known that Wallace wasn’t completely familiar with the area and knew for a fact that there was no MGE? Or that a club member wouldn’t have been aware of its non-existance? If he wanted to ‘prank’ Wallace then why didn’t he simply give an address that existed? He could even have given the householders name in case Wallace checked a Directory. To be honest it would have been a pretty poor prank

Yes, I think, forget prank for the phone call. Abby Normal sums the whole thing up for me, just about spot on. . The 5 items in answer , are poor to my mind, especially the last one.
Wallaces purpose when returning home from Allerton, was to 'not enter the house without a neighbour overseeing the situation', and that's precisely what he did.
There was no luck involved with the next door neighbour being available, because if they had not been home ,Wallace would have disturbed the Holmes’s to witness his shenanigans.If the Holmes’s were not available then the folks across the street would fit the bill. In other words ,’ a witness to his supposed dilemma was not just useful ,it was Paramount to his plan, in my opinion.
Too much thought goes into Alan Close as a witness I think, in terms of his motive for being involved , I believe he was just a kid saying it as it was, probably showing off and acting like the big shot to his friends, but when it came to the timing of his route, in court he was adamant and couldn’t be cajoled by the prosecution.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s a pity that Allan Close couldn’t have been contacted as an adult to answer a few questions but, if my memory serves, I believe that he was killed in the war.

I don’t have any particular aversion to coincidences but I think it’s certainly worth noting that Wallace had trouble getting in on this particular evening. We know that the lock on the backdoor was faulty but Wallace used that door regularly and not once in the past had he been unable to get in. Only on the very night that Julia lay dead in the parlour. Wallace going from front door to backdoor then front and back again served 2 purposes for me. It laid the groundwork for the suggestion that the killer might still have been inside (something that he was pretty much forced to admit in court) and it increased the chance of neighbours seeing him having problems getting in. It’s also suggestive to me that there was no loud knocking or calling out Julia’s name through the letterbox. Things that you perhaps might have expected from someone ‘concerned’ for his wife’s safety. Then of course we have Wallace seeing that the lights were off (and why would a stranger bother turning off the lights) and a cupboard door was torn off (leaving him in no doubt that there was no innocent explanation for Julia’s absence) and yet he neglects to look in the parlour before going upstairs despite the handle of the door being within reaching distance.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, I think, forget prank for the phone call. Abby Normal sums the whole thing up for me, just about spot on. . The 5 items in answer , are poor to my mind, especially the last one.
Wallaces purpose when returning home from Allerton, was to 'not enter the house without a neighbour overseeing the situation', and that's precisely what he did.
There was no luck involved with the next door neighbour being available, because if they had not been home ,Wallace would have disturbed the Holmes’s to witness his shenanigans.If the Holmes’s were not available then the folks across the street would fit the bill. In other words ,’ a witness to his supposed dilemma was not just useful ,it was Paramount to his plan, in my opinion.
Too much thought goes into Alan Close as a witness I think, in terms of his motive for being involved , I believe he was just a kid saying it as it was, probably showing off and acting like the big shot to his friends, but when it came to the timing of his route, in court he was adamant and couldn’t be cajoled by the prosecution.

Hi Moste
yup-his next step was to go knock on there door if they hadn't come out and if they weren't there probably any other neighbor. Remember he cant get in but the second they appear he can suddenly get in!

[WallaceWackedHer]

If pushed, of the two options, I’d have to go with prank as I don’t for a minute think that Wallace had Parry as an accomplice. That said, I’d rate the prank call at around a thousand to one. I just can’t see Wallace acting on the spur of the moment like that. He would have had just 24 hours to plan and murder his wife and for much of this time he would have been at work.

We are being asked to believe that Parry played a pointless prank on a man that was simply an acquaintance. It wasn’t even a prank that he could have enjoyed by seeing his victims reaction to being tricked. Not only that, of all of the available phone boxes, he chooses the box that nearest to Wallace’s house and he times it just as William left the house. He then asks a completely pointless and illogical question which could only have added to Wallace’s suspicion about the call and increased his chance of not going. Also I’d ask why he chose a non-existent address? How could Parry have known that Wallace wasn’t completely familiar with the area and knew for a fact that there was no MGE? Or that a club member wouldn’t have been aware of its non-existance? If he wanted to ‘prank’ Wallace then why didn’t he simply give an address that existed? He could even have given the householders name in case Wallace checked a Directory. To be honest it would have been a pretty poor prank

Well if it was a prank call then there's no necessity that it's even planned. It opens up a lot of possibilities which seem like a stretch when trying to reverse engineer those things, but can very well happen in real life. And furthermore, the box wouldn't be specifically chosen because it was near Wallace's home, it was chosen because it was only a minute further up the road Parry was driving on when he saw Wallace... For example, if Wallace was near the chess club and Parry was driving past, he might have stopped at a box near the chess club...

Same about thinking through lots of details just to play a joke on someone - if it's a joke it was spur of the moment, so Parry was potentially improvising as he went along (he would've had about a minute after seeing Wallace to come up with the idea and pull over). I think it's objectively a pretty damn funny prank, ESPECIALLY with Wallace as the victim and the client a known troublemaker.

Whether Gordon Parry placed the call or not, he was driving past Wallace just minutes before (or during) the phone call.

So either way there is a coincidence, that coincidence being that the two men crossed paths at the fateful time.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes, I think, forget prank for the phone call. Abby Normal sums the whole thing up for me, just about spot on. . The 5 items in answer , are poor to my mind, especially the last one.
Wallaces purpose when returning home from Allerton, was to 'not enter the house without a neighbour overseeing the situation', and that's precisely what he did.
There was no luck involved with the next door neighbour being available, because if they had not been home ,Wallace would have disturbed the Holmes’s to witness his shenanigans.If the Holmes’s were not available then the folks across the street would fit the bill. In other words ,’ a witness to his supposed dilemma was not just useful ,it was Paramount to his plan, in my opinion.
Too much thought goes into Alan Close as a witness I think, in terms of his motive for being involved , I believe he was just a kid saying it as it was, probably showing off and acting like the big shot to his friends, but when it came to the timing of his route, in court he was adamant and couldn’t be cajoled by the prosecution.

That's not correct actually. It's the opposite. Alan Close stonewalled the defence, who got mad and essentially accused him of perjury for lying about the time he reached the home. This was based on solid foundation since he had originally given a different time (and was "convinced" by police he was mistaken), and there were many others working at that time who saw him and attested to a later time. IIRC one of those witnesses was of adult age, and they had taken the time from the clock on the tower which had just been calibrated.

[WallaceWackedHer]

It’s a pity that Allan Close couldn’t have been contacted as an adult to answer a few questions but, if my memory serves, I believe that he was killed in the war.

I don’t have any particular aversion to coincidences but I think it’s certainly worth noting that Wallace had trouble getting in on this particular evening. We know that the lock on the backdoor was faulty but Wallace used that door regularly and not once in the past had he been unable to get in. Only on the very night that Julia lay dead in the parlour. Wallace going from front door to backdoor then front and back again served 2 purposes for me. It laid the groundwork for the suggestion that the killer might still have been inside (something that he was pretty much forced to admit in court) and it increased the chance of neighbours seeing him having problems getting in. It’s also suggestive to me that there was no loud knocking or calling out Julia’s name through the letterbox. Things that you perhaps might have expected from someone ‘concerned’ for his wife’s safety. Then of course we have Wallace seeing that the lights were off (and why would a stranger bother turning off the lights) and a cupboard door was torn off (leaving him in no doubt that there was no innocent explanation for Julia’s absence) and yet he neglects to look in the parlour before going upstairs despite the handle of the door being within reaching distance.

Wallace said he thought someone was holding the door against him/had bolted it. If he's legitimately innocent, it's possible he was actually right.

If he was concerned about playing a pantomime for his neighbors, calling through the letterbox etc. and making sure he's noticed is exactly what he would do. His actions of gently knocking on the door is more in line with someone who isn't really sure what's going on. By all accounts he wasn't panicked, he wasn't sure what to think. He said he thought she might have gone out to post a letter, but then realized her cold meant she probably wouldn't have done so, etc.

I'm not sure why someone would or wouldn't turn the lights out. It makes exactly as much sense for Wallace to turn them out as it does for someone else to.

The same exact thing is true about the parlour. It's like saying someone walked past a perfectly good closet without bothering to check inside where the body was... If they never use that room except when they have guests, paired with Julia's flu, it's obviously WAY more likely she'd be upstairs in bed.

It's not like Wallace couldn't be guilty or involved, but these are not points against him at all, and in fact one of those is a point in his favour.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that the Johnston’s partially derailed Wallace’s plan by appearing when they did. I think that it was Wallace’s intention to check the front door then the back and then suggest that the killer escaped via the backdoor when Wallace had returned to the front door. He might even have intended to have said to the police something like “as I returned to the back yard I saw that the back door was open.” Or “as I returned to the back yard a figure dressed in dark clothing passed me in the alleyway.” Or both. Wallace claimed that the front door was bolted and this is something that Julia was unlikely to have done.

On the subject of the lights. I haven’t heard a logical reason why another killer would have bothered turning off the lights especially if he’d killed Julia on the spur of the moment. Surely he’d have just fled in panic. So it makes no sense for anyone else but it makes sense for a man with a plan (like Wallace) His plan of course was to ‘discover’ Julia’s body at around 9pm. The last thing that he’d have wanted was to have had his plan scuppered by an unplanned visitor. Someone like Amy perhaps knocking on the door and getting no reply despite all of the lights being on. Especially if she’d visited at say 7pm. So instead of a two hour gap for Julia to have been killed they would have narrowed it down to 10 or 15 after Wallace left (or whilst he was there.)

I accept that not everyone agrees with me on the Parlour issue but I’ll stand my ground on this one. I’d say that if you’d put a 1000 men in Wallace’s position that night 999 of them would have checked the Parlour first. It’s simply unbelievable to me that a man who was now convinced that something untoward had happened to his wife would have stood within touching distance of that door and thought “now, percentage-wise the Parlour is used less than the other rooms so.....” Possibly Wallace wanted to have one last look around the house to check for mistakes before letting anyone in?

Everything points to Wallace still for me.


Merry Christmas to all posters on the Wallace thread by the way.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I think that the Johnston’s partially derailed Wallace’s plan by appearing when they did. I think that it was Wallace’s intention to check the front door then the back and then suggest that the killer escaped via the backdoor when Wallace had returned to the front door. He might even have intended to have said to the police something like “as I returned to the back yard I saw that the back door was open.” Or “as I returned to the back yard a figure dressed in dark clothing passed me in the alleyway.” Or both. Wallace claimed that the front door was bolted and this is something that Julia was unlikely to have done.

On the subject of the lights. I haven’t heard a logical reason why another killer would have bothered turning off the lights especially if he’d killed Julia on the spur of the moment. Surely he’d have just fled in panic. So it makes no sense for anyone else but it makes sense for a man with a plan (like Wallace) His plan of course was to ‘discover’ Julia’s body at around 9pm. The last thing that he’d have wanted was to have had his plan scuppered by an unplanned visitor. Someone like Amy perhaps knocking on the door and getting no reply despite all of the lights being on. Especially if she’d visited at say 7pm. So instead of a two hour gap for Julia to have been killed they would have narrowed it down to 10 or 15 after Wallace left (or whilst he was there.)

I accept that not everyone agrees with me on the Parlour issue but I’ll stand my ground on this one. I’d say that if you’d put a 1000 men in Wallace’s position that night 999 of them would have checked the Parlour first. It’s simply unbelievable to me that a man who was now convinced that something untoward had happened to his wife would have stood within touching distance of that door and thought “now, percentage-wise the Parlour is used less than the other rooms so.....” Possibly Wallace wanted to have one last look around the house to check for mistakes before letting anyone in?

Everything points to Wallace still for me.


Merry Christmas to all posters on the Wallace thread by the way.

This is all backwards engineering though. To be fair nobody who just killed her would want someone finding out something's happened too soon after (before they've even got back to a safe spot like their home etc)...

I mean, conversely, you could be concerned as Wallace, that someone would see the lights go on in the rarely used parlour before Wallace had even left, then go off at say 6:50 and stay off. That would look REALLY bad for him. I mean why would the light go on in the parlour while he's still at home? He didn't even try to pre-empt that.

There are a lot of spent matches on the floor I recall, more than required to just light the fireplace and lights. It's suggested the killer used those matches inside the darkened room, perhaps cleaning some stuff up in the darkness, or messing about with the mackintosh. Given the number of matches, I wonder if it's possible for a skirt to catch light from a match that's being held too close as the killer yanks her body over etc.

Wallace alleged he wasn't convinced something bad had happened to Julia at all (just a sense of unease), and there's no reason she'd be in the parlour. If it's dark and quiet inside etc. she's hardly entertaining guests. Literally why would she possibly be in there unless he anticipated she'd been murdered? If he's legitimately innocent then it's clearly logical to assume the house is dark, and Julia's sick, so she's probably in bed.

If he went upstairs I'm not sure he's checking things in rooms he didn't go in after killing her. More likely if he's the culprit, when he went upstairs he put some notes in that vase for whatever possible reason, and threw around the pillows in the bedroom to cause a look of disarray before returning to the Johnstons.

To do all this though, and not take his blood soaked jacket and put it in the kitchen stove, or just do SOMETHING with it, is a bit stupid on his part. If I were him, and had killed her, I'd pretend I was checking the house when in actuality I'd beeline for the parlour knowing I HAVE to do something with that jacket first and foremost as a matter of urgency.

I'd also use the opportunity to lie my ass off obviously, not just say it's mine and that Julia never wore it or slung it round her shoulders.

We mustn't forget either that there's more than one person confirmed to be in that house at that time, both the Johnstons are in there, and they do make the suspect list... So you have to cast the net wide and consider whether THEY could be responsible for doing things downstairs while Wallace was upstairs. You just have to consider the possibility.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Happy holidays all !

I'm chilling at home this year. I will add to the above post, that in a scenario where Wallace is entirely innocent, if a killer stayed inside the home they would definitely want the lights off. Someone knocking while they're still inside would be really bad, and the numerous matches do seem to suggest someone had stayed inside (be it Wallace or another individual) in the darkness, working or inspecting something by matchlight.

Also the upstairs lights were burning still and had not been turned off, which suggests the killer did not go upstairs, or neglected to turn them off. That being said, if someone knocks, it's bad for Wallace whether the lights are on OR off. If someone can say they came at 7 and knocked but got no answer, AND the house was pitch black, that might legitimately look worse for him. I don't think darkness would put someone off of at least trying to knock at an early hour... Especially when, as mentioned, a couple of the upstairs lights were allegedly left on, and when you've made a trip down there specifically to see them... But yeah, the lights weren't even all turned off.

Someone staying there to clean things up might suggest someone who was in there did not have gloves on and touched things, which would then have to be wiped or removed entirely. The same could be said of shoeprints etc., efforts would have to be made to cover them, either by fire or by scrubbing more blood over them, so on and so forth. If Wallace is the killer he could not stay in the house because apparently his alibi is founded entirely on time. However if he did it I think the timing aspect of the alibi was purely incidental.

For example, the milk boy came, but didn't come forward to tell police for several weeks. Wallace might well have thought he was not going to come forward AT ALL, and it would have been wise for him to mention it, if his entire alibi revolves around supposedly impossible timing. When asked who (aside from himself) last saw his wife alive to the best of his knowledge, he could very well have said the milk boy who delivered milk to the house at around half 6. He made no mention of it, so I don't think this visit was something he felt was important to his alibi if he killed Julia. The fact it was, might be sheer luck... He might have been entirely banking on the fake suspect red herring to mislead the police, without even thinking about needing such tight timings.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is all backwards engineering though. To be fair nobody who just killed her would want someone finding out something's happened too soon after (before they've even got back to a safe spot like their home etc)...

I mean, conversely, you could be concerned as Wallace, that someone would see the lights go on in the rarely used parlour before Wallace had even left, then go off at say 6:50 and stay off. That would look REALLY bad for him. I mean why would the light go on in the parlour while he's still at home? He didn't even try to pre-empt that.

There are a lot of spent matches on the floor I recall, more than required to just light the fireplace and lights. It's suggested the killer used those matches inside the darkened room, perhaps cleaning some stuff up in the darkness, or messing about with the mackintosh. Given the number of matches, I wonder if it's possible for a skirt to catch light from a match that's being held too close as the killer yanks her body over etc.

Wallace alleged he wasn't convinced something bad had happened to Julia at all (just a sense of unease), and there's no reason she'd be in the parlour. If it's dark and quiet inside etc. she's hardly entertaining guests. Literally why would she possibly be in there unless he anticipated she'd been murdered? If he's legitimately innocent then it's clearly logical to assume the house is dark, and Julia's sick, so she's probably in bed.

If he went upstairs I'm not sure he's checking things in rooms he didn't go in after killing her. More likely if he's the culprit, when he went upstairs he put some notes in that vase for whatever possible reason, and threw around the pillows in the bedroom to cause a look of disarray before returning to the Johnstons.

To do all this though, and not take his blood soaked jacket and put it in the kitchen stove, or just do SOMETHING with it, is a bit stupid on his part. If I were him, and had killed her, I'd pretend I was checking the house when in actuality I'd beeline for the parlour knowing I HAVE to do something with that jacket first and foremost as a matter of urgency.

I'd also use the opportunity to lie my ass off obviously, not just say it's mine and that Julia never wore it or slung it round her shoulders.

We mustn't forget either that there's more than one person confirmed to be in that house at that time, both the Johnstons are in there, and they do make the suspect list... So you have to cast the net wide and consider whether THEY could be responsible for doing things downstairs while Wallace was upstairs. You just have to consider the possibility.

I can’t see any benefit at all for an unknown to have bothered turning off the lights. He would have left via the backdoor and the alley way after all. I also can’t see anyone paying attention to a light in the Parlour or of them noting what time it was switched off. Even if Wallace had been asked about the light going on then off then he could easily have come up with something like....Julia was looking for something or preparing to play the piano whilst he was out.

The matches might simply be explained by them going out too quickly and so he had to strike another.

On Wallace believing that there was someone in the house. I haven’t re-read that part of the trial transcript but when pressed he was made to admit that, at the time, he might have been of the opinion that there was someone inside. Or rather that was the impression that he was trying to give.

Wallace might only have had a sense of unease but he mentioned that this feeling began when he finally got the message that MGE didn’t exist. This feeling would surely have increased when a) he saw that the lights were off, and b) he couldn’t get in. But any thoughts of an innocent explanation like Julia being sick would have disappeared when he saw that a cupboard door had been yanked off. And we can’t be certain that he didn’t go upstairs after the murder it’s just that we can’t come up with a specific reason. As I’ve suggested on the other thread what if Wallace used chemicals from his lab to clean his hands in the back kitchen sink and what if, in his panic to head for the tram, he’d forgotten to put it back and so had to do that when he got back. Or perhaps that was the reason that he went up earlier? Perhaps he was checking that there was no blood on the container?

Burning the mackintosh is more risky especially as it was wet with blood. He had to leave the house so he couldn’t have stayed to ensure that it burnt fully and if he’d been seen returning or heard by neighbours as he knocked the door how could he have finished the burning? If it had taken 15 minutes to burn fully how could he have explained to the police what he was up to between the time he returned and the time that he reported the murder?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm chilling at home this year. I will add to the above post, that in a scenario where Wallace is entirely innocent, if a killer stayed inside the home they would definitely want the lights off. Someone knocking while they're still inside would be really bad, and the numerous matches do seem to suggest someone had stayed inside (be it Wallace or another individual) in the darkness, working or inspecting something by matchlight.

I can’t see how? The ‘killer’ had no reason to loiter around so if someone knocks on the front door then he scarpers via the backdoor. There would have been no chance of a visitor trying the backdoor.

If we suggest another killer then we either have to come up with a) someone that hated Julia enough to want to murder her in the most brutal way, b) a thief hoping for the unlikely eventuality of breaking in and stealing the cash without Julia knowing (in a house with all the lights on so it was obvious that the house was occupied) or c) a thief who expected to have had to have disabled/silenced Julia to get at the cash. And even though she was a frail old lady he still bludgeoned her remorselessly.

It points to a deliberately planned and vicious murder. To Wallace.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
We mustn't forget either that there's more than one person confirmed to be in that house at that time, both the Johnstons are in there, and they do make the suspect list... So you have to cast the net wide and consider whether THEY could be responsible for doing things downstairs while Wallace was upstairs. You just have to consider the possibility.

I have considered the Johnston’s but I just have to dismiss them. I see absolutely nothing that makes me even the slightest bit suspicious of them, likewise Caird or Amy.

For me it’s either Wallace or an as yet unnamed person with a connection to Julia or Wallace.

Hope you had a good Christmas WWH?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I can’t see any benefit at all for an unknown to have bothered turning off the lights. He would have left via the backdoor and the alley way after all. I also can’t see anyone paying attention to a light in the Parlour or of them noting what time it was switched off. Even if Wallace had been asked about the light going on then off then he could easily have come up with something like....Julia was looking for something or preparing to play the piano whilst he was out.

The matches might simply be explained by them going out too quickly and so he had to strike another.

On Wallace believing that there was someone in the house. I haven’t re-read that part of the trial transcript but when pressed he was made to admit that, at the time, he might have been of the opinion that there was someone inside. Or rather that was the impression that he was trying to give.

Wallace might only have had a sense of unease but he mentioned that this feeling began when he finally got the message that MGE didn’t exist. This feeling would surely have increased when a) he saw that the lights were off, and b) he couldn’t get in. But any thoughts of an innocent explanation like Julia being sick would have disappeared when he saw that a cupboard door had been yanked off. And we can’t be certain that he didn’t go upstairs after the murder it’s just that we can’t come up with a specific reason. As I’ve suggested on the other thread what if Wallace used chemicals from his lab to clean his hands in the back kitchen sink and what if, in his panic to head for the tram, he’d forgotten to put it back and so had to do that when he got back. Or perhaps that was the reason that he went up earlier? Perhaps he was checking that there was no blood on the container?

Burning the mackintosh is more risky especially as it was wet with blood. He had to leave the house so he couldn’t have stayed to ensure that it burnt fully and if he’d been seen returning or heard by neighbours as he knocked the door how could he have finished the burning? If it had taken 15 minutes to burn fully how could he have explained to the police what he was up to between the time he returned and the time that he reported the murder?

None of this makes any sense. It's clearly bad for William if someone knocks too soon after he left, regardless of the state of the lighting in the house (which did have lights on - purposefully so if he went upstairs after killing her, since two were left burning allegedly). It's clearly bad for another killer if someone arrives and the light is up showing someone is in the parlour, or if Wallace isn't an accomplice and returns as well, he'd see there's a guest. If Wallace killed Julia, he may have potentially not put the light on at all, which would be the ideal scenario for him. That would necessitate working by match-light and fire-light.

The matches are highly suggestive of something being surveyed or done in the darkness. There are several matches actually under the body itself as well, by the way, in the sleeve of the jacket, and the box of matches elsewhere in the room which Florence picked up with her bare hands.

Any risk associated with incinerating that jacket is infinitely less than leaving it under her body then immediately shutting down his own defence claiming she never wore it. It's just dumb. Going through all the trouble of wiping down containers or w.e. then leaving the sole most incriminating piece of evidence stuffed under the body simply doesn't add up at all. Doing literally anything else with it would be better than that, and the kitchen stove is blatantly more suitable for burning it since the living room fire has a safety grid. He didn't need to stay for any burning, throw it into the kitchen stove then leave... He may have assumed the parlour fireplace would do the trick but was mistaken.

After the person killed Julia we know they moved the body, which takes some level of loitering. In fact the body was moved substantially, the feet had been yanked over to the opposite side of the fireplace (or the hearth rug rotated 180 degrees, since her body was on that). Although I VERY MUCH doubt Julia would be conscious after the first hit with a heavy metal object that caved her skull in, the only way this happens is if there was a slight struggle or the killer or someone else who was with the body moved her into that position intentionally.

---

Essentially from all I've read it was the armchair on the left of the room where she was first struck down. So it would go something like this:

1. Julia is kneeling down to put the fireplace on, either for a guest, or for a musical evening. She is near the armchair on the left of the room. She has matches to light it, naturally. Alternatively she is turning it out if that's possible on gas fires.

2. The killer hits Julia in front and just above of her left ear, with a slightly right to left (mostly downward) angle.

3. Unless the killer was gripping her hair and holding her up when this strike landed, her body crumples in the direction of the force (to the right and very slightly back - it would leave her body slightly twisted).

4. The killer for some reason either moves her body 180 degrees, or rotates the rug (in fact, the position of the body if the rug was turned 180 degrees is the same position I imagine she crumpled into if you imagine the direction of force).

One potential reason this may have been done, is to mislead investigators. Perhaps they wanted to hide the fact she'd been setting the parlour up.

---

According to the window cleaner, the home was already pitch black before Alan Close arrived. I've been informed that Mark R's sources told him Julia wore a veil over her face due to a birthmark, which is how the Wallace in drag rumours began. Although I'd think if anyone pretended to be Julia it could only be another woman such as Amy... I don't think either did, however, because Alan would have been mentioned if he was in any way vital to the alibi... He wasn't taken into account at all in my opinion, and him providing the evidence that saved Wallace's life is complete coincidence.

I am not sure what room Amy Wallace had been received in by Julia. I believe it was the parlour? Considering it was January, it may be getting dark not too long after she arrived, so the parlour's lights may have been turned on while she was there... It would all be turned out when Amy left, including the fireplace if it's possible to do so. Given it's a gas fire I think it was probably possible to turn out.

If Amy was received in the parlour, then if Julia entered that room again it would be the second time that day she had been in there... A point was made of how cold the room would be, but had Amy visited and the fire been lit, I'd expect it may retain some level of warmth by the time she went back in. She'd obviously still light it again anyway, but it might not be quite as freezing in there as all that.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I can’t see how? The ‘killer’ had no reason to loiter around so if someone knocks on the front door then he scarpers via the backdoor. There would have been no chance of a visitor trying the backdoor.

If we suggest another killer then we either have to come up with a) someone that hated Julia enough to want to murder her in the most brutal way, b) a thief hoping for the unlikely eventuality of breaking in and stealing the cash without Julia knowing (in a house with all the lights on so it was obvious that the house was occupied) or c) a thief who expected to have had to have disabled/silenced Julia to get at the cash. And even though she was a frail old lady he still bludgeoned her remorselessly.

It points to a deliberately planned and vicious murder. To Wallace.

It doesn't suggest it could only be him at all. I think Amy has a case to answer to as a suspect, and she should have been pressed more in questioning.

I think the police made too much of a phone call which is likely to be a practical joke to properly investigate certain suspects... Although William placing a call to himself ties things up in a neat little Columbo episode package, the facts are there that it's more likely than not that he DIDN'T place the call.

In that case Amy could well be the killer just as much as Wallace could. The fact William was seen allegedly crying (but this seems like a hindsight thing) around the time Amy alleges she visited, does support that there could be a link... Think about that too, Amy placed herself at the scene of the crime, knew about the business trip, has reports from witnesses regarding suspicions about her and sightings on the night of the murder, and her husband who looks identical to William is always away in Malay leaving her sexually unsatisfied.

An exploit is another easy possibility. Bludgeoning her remorselessly doesn't really mean anything if someone actually planned to kill her to burgle her, there's not even consensus on how many strikes she received for one. But if you want to silence someone permanently, you make damn sure they're dead. If they regain consciousness even briefly they can talk. People have actually been caught because of that. There's a special legal term for a witness statement from a dying victim.

You can't just see nothing to feel suspicious, that's not really how criminal investigations work lol. If someone is there when the body is discovered, or at the scene on the day of the crime etc, they are automatically a suspect. That means the Johnstons who were there when the body was discovered, and Amy who had been in the parlour around the time Julia was allegedly killed (4 to 8 PM window by forensics), are both automatically suspects in any investigation. In a good investigation they would have been questioned much more extensively. It was a crap investigation... Imagine not even tracking down kids who worked on that street around the time your prime suspect claims to have left the house? Imagine having to wait for them to come forward lmao.