Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Or ... the caller wanted to kill Julia. Goes round there with his bludgeon and knocks on the door, no answer. Walks away temporarily disappointed.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NickB View Post
      Or ... the caller wanted to kill Julia. Goes round there with his bludgeon and knocks on the door, no answer. Walks away temporarily disappointed.
      Im not suggesting it Nick as a genuine theory just as a version of the Prank call theory.

      The caller is Parry who used the call to get Wallace out of the house so that his associate can get in and steal the cash. Wallace, who has been considering killing his wife for some time, uses the business trip as a reason to make it look like someone else killed his wife whilst he was out. The associate knocks (intending to pretend that he’s Qualtrough and that there’s been a mix up) but gets no reply. So he goes to the backdoor as there’s less chance of him being seen. He gets inside using a key. All is quiet and the lights are off so he thinks that Julia might have gone to bed. The cash in the box is a poor amount so he looks in the parlour hoping to find more cash or valuables and finds Julia lying dead. He panics and scarpers. Neither Parry or the thief say anything because the police would obviously suspect them of killing Julia.

      Regards

      Herlock



      Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

      Comment


      • I understand, and it would explain some things. I was just exploring the irony of the 'Wallace took advantage of the call' scenario if the call was intended for murder rather than robbery.

        In the standard Qualtrough theory, Julia lets him in to wait for her husband's return.


        Surely she would only do this if she thought Wallace would return shortly. The theory appears to be aware of this and suggests she would be vague about the Menlove area and therefore could have thought he would be back soon. But it also suggests she knew the appointment time.

        If Wallace left at 6.45 for a 7.30 appointment, even if she was vague about where he was going, she would not have expected him back until at least 8 o'clock – i.e. not shortly.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Im not suggesting it Nick as a genuine theory just as a version of the Prank call theory.

          The caller is Parry who used the call to get Wallace out of the house so that his associate can get in and steal the cash. Wallace, who has been considering killing his wife for some time, uses the business trip as a reason to make it look like someone else killed his wife whilst he was out. The associate knocks (intending to pretend that he’s Qualtrough and that there’s been a mix up) but gets no reply. So he goes to the backdoor as there’s less chance of him being seen. He gets inside using a key. All is quiet and the lights are off so he thinks that Julia might have gone to bed. The cash in the box is a poor amount so he looks in the parlour hoping to find more cash or valuables and finds Julia lying dead. He panics and scarpers. Neither Parry or the thief say anything because the police would obviously suspect them of killing Julia.
          hi herlock. your details is exactly what i was thinking about too. it would explain a few things. like the caller definitely not sounding like wallace. the mention of the 21 birthday party (which is quite the coincidence) and what you mentioned.

          i dont think 1 day to plan the rest would be too short at all. his alibi is set, theres a dodgy phone call to get him out of the house which of course everyone would think the killer was the caller. all hes got to do is throw on the mac, kill her, dump the mac and head out. maybe stage tje robbery, if it wasnt done by the caller. simps.

          i still think wallace prbably made tje call on his way to the club and killed her, but i think i like this scenario second.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • I wonder if it would be helpful to consider the Qualtrough phone call in terms of likely success of the caller's plans. Whoever the caller, they had thought about their plan so it may also be useful to consider whether an alternative option would better suit the caller's plan. If the call is connected to the murder, then we have two possible purposes of the call:
            1. Wallace - to supply an opportunity to establish an alibi and plant the suggestion someone else committed the murder
            2. Parry (other) - to get Wallace out of the house in order to commit the crime (whether that crime is burglary or murder or both).

            If Wallace made the call, I would suggest the call does exactly what was necessary for his plan to succeed.

            If Parry (or other) made the call, then there are risks outside of his control to his plan succeeding, ie:
            • The message may not reach Wallace
            • Wallace may know (or discover) that MGE does not exist and therefore not make the journey
            • Wallace may find being called at the Chess Club suspicious and therefore not make the journey
            • Wallace may simply decide it is too inconvenient and therefore not make the journey
            Given the above risks to a plan that could only be attempted once, would Parry (or other) choose a different approach to better achieve their plan's end - at the very least use a real address?




            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              The caller is Parry who used the call to get Wallace out of the house so that his associate can get in and steal the cash. Wallace, who has been considering killing his wife for some time, uses the business trip as a reason to make it look like someone else killed his wife whilst he was out. The associate knocks (intending to pretend that he’s Qualtrough and that there’s been a mix up) but gets no reply. So he goes to the backdoor as there’s less chance of him being seen. He gets inside using a key. All is quiet and the lights are off so he thinks that Julia might have gone to bed. The cash in the box is a poor amount so he looks in the parlour hoping to find more cash or valuables and finds Julia lying dead. He panics and scarpers. Neither Parry or the thief say anything because the police would obviously suspect them of killing Julia.
              This is the case for generating theories! I'm logging this as the Coincidental Accomplice Theory. Phone call and its motive the same as Accomplice theory, the murder as Wallace theory. The coincidence is that Wallace uses the unexpected call as cover for his long-planned murder scheme, while Parry and his associate become unintentionally embroiled in murder. Is that it a nutshell, Herlock?

              As a writer, I love the drama of the accomplice thief finding a dead body in the parlour... not what he was expecting that night! But I won't comment on theory just yet.
              Author of Cold Case Jury books: The Shark Arm Mystery (2020), Poisoned at the Priory (2020), Move to Murder (2018), Death of an Actress (2018), The Green Bicycle Mystery (2017) - "Armchair detectives will be delighted" - Publishers Weekly. And for something completely different - I'm the co-founder of Wow-Vinyl - celebrating the Golden Years of the British Single (1977-85)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                I wonder if it would be helpful to consider the Qualtrough phone call in terms of likely success of the caller's plans. Whoever the caller, they had thought about their plan so it may also be useful to consider whether an alternative option would better suit the caller's plan. If the call is connected to the murder, then we have two possible purposes of the call:
                1. Wallace - to supply an opportunity to establish an alibi and plant the suggestion someone else committed the murder
                2. Parry (other) - to get Wallace out of the house in order to commit the crime (whether that crime is burglary or murder or both).

                If Wallace made the call, I would suggest the call does exactly what was necessary for his plan to succeed.

                If Parry (or other) made the call, then there are risks outside of his control to his plan succeeding, ie:
                • The message may not reach Wallace
                • Wallace may know (or discover) that MGE does not exist and therefore not make the journey
                • Wallace may find being called at the Chess Club suspicious and therefore not make the journey
                • Wallace may simply decide it is too inconvenient and therefore not make the journey
                Given the above risks to a plan that could only be attempted once, would Parry (or other) choose a different approach to better achieve their plan's end - at the very least use a real address?



                Couldn’t agree more Eten. It’s a point I’ve mentioned a lot. There was so much that could have gone wrong for anyone other than Wallace.
                Regards

                Herlock



                Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

                  This is the case for generating theories! I'm logging this as the Coincidental Accomplice Theory. Phone call and its motive the same as Accomplice theory, the murder as Wallace theory. The coincidence is that Wallace uses the unexpected call as cover for his long-planned murder scheme, while Parry and his associate become unintentionally embroiled in murder. Is that it a nutshell, Herlock?

                  As a writer, I love the drama of the accomplice thief finding a dead body in the parlour... not what he was expecting that night! But I won't comment on theory just yet.
                  hey i thought of it first! see my post #358. so i get to name it. im calling it Abby's Theory.
                  but yes love the idea of the burglar unexpectedly finding the dead body!
                  Last edited by Abby Normal; 02-11-2021, 02:54 PM.
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                    I wonder if it would be helpful to consider the Qualtrough phone call in terms of likely success of the caller's plans. Whoever the caller, they had thought about their plan so it may also be useful to consider whether an alternative option would better suit the caller's plan. If the call is connected to the murder, then we have two possible purposes of the call:
                    1. Wallace - to supply an opportunity to establish an alibi and plant the suggestion someone else committed the murder
                    2. Parry (other) - to get Wallace out of the house in order to commit the crime (whether that crime is burglary or murder or both).

                    If Wallace made the call, I would suggest the call does exactly what was necessary for his plan to succeed.

                    If Parry (or other) made the call, then there are risks outside of his control to his plan succeeding, ie:
                    • The message may not reach Wallace
                    • Wallace may know (or discover) that MGE does not exist and therefore not make the journey
                    • Wallace may find being called at the Chess Club suspicious and therefore not make the journey
                    • Wallace may simply decide it is too inconvenient and therefore not make the journey
                    Given the above risks to a plan that could only be attempted once, would Parry (or other) choose a different approach to better achieve their plan's end - at the very least use a real address?



                    Hi eten - sound points there as to the risks for Parry (or other) making the call. In addition:
                    • Julia may not grant the person calling himself Qualtrough admittance to the house.
                    If ready admittance being granted wasn't so important, there were plenty of times that Julia would ordinarily have been alone in the house when forced entry could have been attempted.

                    Best regards,
                    OneRound

                    PS Great to see this thread running at speed and as it should.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                      hey i thought of it first! see my post #358. so i get to name it. im calling it Abby's Theory.
                      but yes love the idea of the burglar unexpectedly finding the dead body!
                      I’d be happy with Abby’s Theory too
                      Regards

                      Herlock



                      Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by NickB View Post
                        I understand, and it would explain some things. I was just exploring the irony of the 'Wallace took advantage of the call' scenario if the call was intended for murder rather than robbery.

                        In the standard Qualtrough theory, Julia lets him in to wait for her husband's return.


                        Surely she would only do this if she thought Wallace would return shortly. The theory appears to be aware of this and suggests she would be vague about the Menlove area and therefore could have thought he would be back soon. But it also suggests she knew the appointment time.

                        If Wallace left at 6.45 for a 7.30 appointment, even if she was vague about where he was going, she would not have expected him back until at least 8 o'clock – i.e. not shortly.
                        I think that the Accomplice Theory assumes that the Accomplice arrived at 7.30 and not just after Wallace left. The intention being for him to have said “but I said that I’d come to your house at 7.30; there’s been a mix up.” So maybe Julia might have expected a 30 minute wait? This causes an issue of course in that if he saw Wallace leave at 6.45 how could he be sure that Wallace wouldn’t have returned at 8.00? This would have given him just 30 minutes to get in with his story, engage Julia in small talk, wait for the opportunity of sneaking into the Kitchen to steal the cash then make his excuses and leave. Possibly with the thought “what if he gets back at 7.55 or 7.50” to add to the stress?

                        Regards

                        Herlock



                        Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by OneRound View Post

                          Hi eten - sound points there as to the risks for Parry (or other) making the call. In addition:
                          • Julia may not grant the person calling himself Qualtrough admittance to the house.
                          If ready admittance being granted wasn't so important, there were plenty of times that Julia would ordinarily have been alone in the house when forced entry could have been attempted.

                          Best regards,
                          OneRound

                          PS Great to see this thread running at speed and as it should.
                          OneRound you’re going to have to write a book on the A6 to get that thread up and running again as in around 100 posts time the Maybrick thread will take over as the longest running thread which will please Ike.
                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 02-11-2021, 04:41 PM.
                          Regards

                          Herlock



                          Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                          Comment


                          • I just received my copy of Murder Tales: Unsolved by H.N. Lloyd as it’s it’s one I’d never gotten around to buying. I went straight to the Wallace chapter and my review is.........avoid like the plague! WWH put a very short review on his website saying that he hadn’t read it for a while and that ‘some facts are wrong...’ which is an understatement that I’m sure he’d agree with if he re-read it. How could Lloyd cram in so many errors and inventions? Save your money guys.....go and buy a Pasty from Greggs

                            The problem is that I’m now wary of reading the other chapters some of which are on cases where I’m unfamiliar with the details. There’s a ripper section.....if it mentions ‘conspiracy’ it’s going in the bin.
                            Regards

                            Herlock



                            Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                            Comment


                            • Yup. The ripper section is crap too. He states that Druitt couldn't have been the ripper because he was playing cricket at the time of the murders!
                              Regards

                              Herlock



                              Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                              Comment


                              • Just a word on the idea ‘that a person who was not a regular visitor to 29 Wolverton, knocked on the front door then went to the back’
                                I have mentioned before my doubts about Wallace’s traipse back and forth front to back.
                                But consider a stranger leaving the front to go to the back. He wouldn’t have a clue which back gate to try, having gone down the block ,down the side alley, along the back alley ..and in the dark.No chance. Unless there was a 29 sign on the gate, which I very much doubt.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X