Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[etenguy]

How about the mackintosh? [and Mrs. Johnston's testimony]

Oliver KC: Yes, to go and open the door; that is my suggestion.
Mrs Johnston: That was my idea; I thought that was the object.

Oliver KC: You had the idea too ?
Mrs Johnston: It just flashed across my mind because it was a peculiar thing, a mackintosh.

Oliver KC: I quite agree — that the woman might have thrown it over her shoulders to go and open the door ?
Mrs Johnston: Yes.

and something John Parkes said about the glove...

The mackintosh doesn't help us distinguish between an accomplice committing the murder or Wallace committing the murder. In both events a realistic scenario exists which explains the evidence.

I'm not sure what part of either Mrs Johnston's or Mr Parkes testimony you are referring to.

I didn't find any of Mrs Johnston's testimony particularly illuminating in terms of the perpetrator of the crime. What have you spotted that I missed?

As you know, I discount Mr Parkes' testimony since it has never been subject to proper challenge and it is sufficiently incredible that it makes accepting it difficult. I know we disagree on this point.

[Abby Normal]

He knew where the cash-box was.

Rifle it while her back was turned.

Then have some reason to make his excuses and leave.

The robbery would not be discovered until Wallace returned.

That was the plan. Except he messed up, with deadly consequences.

Hi rod
Thanks. But i just dont find this plan credible. Rob the house while she was there and not have her notice? Really?

How is that going to work, especially since its basically a stranger in the home shes waiting with until her husband gets home.

Id be more inclined to go with that the plan was, once in the house to knock her out or hold her at bay while he got to the cash box, but even that is a stretch.

[etenguy]

Hi rod
Thanks. But i just dont find this plan credible. Rob the house while she was there and not have her notice? Really?

How is that going to work, especially since its basically a stranger in the home shes waiting with until her husband gets home.

Id be more inclined to go with that the plan was, once in the house to knock her out or hold her at bay while he got to the cash box, but even that is a stretch.

Hi Abby

I think the reading of Rod's theory of how the crime was to be committed is quite logical and if the Parry/Accomplice theory is correct, is the most likely plan. If the accomplice is left alone, through some manipulation or simply waiting, he would rush to the kitchen, take the money and return the cash box so it is not immediately noticed. It is a good explanation for why the cash box was returned to the shelf. It may also explain why the coins dropped on the hearth were left if the criminal was rushing back before Juia returned (either from the toilet or some errand the accomplice sent her on, like getting a pen and paper to leave a message).

[Herlock Sholmes]

...apart from his own statements at the time, and decades later.

And friends and neighbours. Policemen offering to tell, etc...

Disinformation and Misrepresentation is all you have.

It's OK, carry on with your bizarre antics...

I'm here

AND
YOU
DON'T
GET
PAST
ME

Weak as ever and lacking clear thinking.

I’ve gotten past your fantasy so many times Rodders that it’s getting rather boring.

Carry on with your joke theory. The old jokes are always the funniest.

Tell us the bit about Julia wearing hubbies coat to go out looking for Tiddles the cat again. It’s a cracker

[RodCrosby]

The mackintosh doesn't help us distinguish between an accomplice committing the murder or Wallace committing the murder. In both events a realistic scenario exists which explains the evidence.

I'm not sure what part of either Mrs Johnston's or Mr Parkes testimony you are referring to.

I didn't find any of Mrs Johnston's testimony particularly illuminating in terms of the perpetrator of the crime. What have you spotted that I missed?

As you know, I discount Mr Parkes' testimony since it has never been subject to proper challenge and it is sufficiently incredible that it makes accepting it difficult. I know we disagree on this point.

We are still exploring a) "robbery that ended in murder"

The skirt and the mackintosh were burnt together in the same incident (the fatal attack). Anything else is just too outlandish, given especially that there is evidence of the attacker putting the flames out, and the body/mac pulled away from the fire which was then switched-off. Therefore it is reasonable to assume Julia was carrying/wearing the mackintosh in some way at the time of the attack. Just as Mrs. Johnston suggested.

Her idea was Julia had headed for the front door. A very reasonable inference.
Oliver KC suggested Julia was attacked after admitting the visitor, after first throwing the mac over her shoulders to answer the door. Is there another possibility, consistent with the rest of the crime-scene evidence?

Not sure why Parkes's testimony is "incredible", given that it is supported by a witness who says she heard him tell his story immediately after the event occurred. Then there is the generality of the other Atkinson witnesses, who at least demonstrate the story was around for decades, and not simply prompted by the 1981 broadcasts [which we know was impossible anyhow, given the precise chain of events in 1981]. And other unrelated witnesses who independently seem to have the same jigsaw-pieces in their heads.
Parry. Atkinsons' Garage. The car.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Abby

I think the reading of Rod's theory of how the crime was to be committed is quite logical and if the Parry/Accomplice theory is correct, is the most likely plan. If the accomplice is left alone, through some manipulation or simply waiting, he would rush to the kitchen, take the money and return the cash box so it is not immediately noticed. It is a good explanation for why the cash box was returned to the shelf. It may also explain why the coins dropped on the hearth were left if the criminal was rushing back before Juia returned (either from the toilet or some errand the accomplice sent her on, like getting a pen and paper to leave a message).

Hi Eten,

Logical?

Parry has to get an accomplice willing and dumb enough to take all the risk whilst Parry sits drinking tea at the Brine’s.

Then Parry comes up with a plan that can fall at the first hurdle 7 or 8 very simple and eminently possible ways. The plan can also fall at the final hurdle without another huge chunk of luck.

Then the plan comes up with a mere £4. Probably between a fifteenth and a twenty fifth of what they were expecting to be divided between two and yet he makes no effort to look for any more cash or valuables. He rips off a random cupboard door.

Then the accomplice then goes around turning off lights for no discernible reason.

Despite not being able to be tied to the weapon in any way our mystery accomplice walks out with an iron bar covered in blood and brains.

Then we have Julia not being able to recognise her own coat despite not owning a mackintosh.

And how fortunate that in a narrow street of terraced house, where the neighbours on both sides talk of hearing the Wallace’s door being knocked at various times, no one hears or sees Qualtrough. Especially as he would have had to have stood on the doorstep explaining the situation to Julia which meant what 30 seconds to a minute?

And to top this fantasy off we have Parry, who didn’t actually commit the murder, going to a garage where he’s not welcome, to get his car cleaned by someone that neither likes nor trusts him. He gets rid of the clean glove but keeps the bloodied one in a box in the car. And when Parkes naturally spots it he owns up to the crime and even tells him where the weapon is. Facts he tells to the police who, conveniently for Parry (lucky boy yet again) they are too corrupt to follow it up.

And I’ll add. Parkes describes the ‘glove’ as a mitten. How many thieves, robbers, sneak thieves does anyone know that wore mittens to commit a crime. Good job they weren’t those mittens that are joined by a cord!

How can this be logical?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Her idea was Julia had headed for the front door. A very reasonable inference.
Oliver KC suggested Julia was attacked after admitting the visitor, after first throwing the mac over her shoulders to answer the door. Is there another possibility, consistent with the rest of the crime-scene evidence?

Yes, an obvious one. The killer used the mackintosh to in some way shield himself from blood.

Are you going to tell us all about Tiddles the cat now?

[etenguy]

We are still exploring a) "robbery that ended in murder"

The skirt and the mackintosh were burnt together in the same incident (the fatal attack). Anything else is just too outlandish, given especially that there is evidence of the attacker putting the flames out, and the body/mac pulled away from the fire which was then switched-off. Therefore it is reasonable to assume Julia was carrying/wearing the mackintosh in some way at the time of the attack. Just as Mrs. Johnston suggested.

That is one explanation, and entirely plausible. I know we are exploring a) but the same applies if Wallace were the killer and they both fell against the fire during the violent attack

Her idea was Julia had headed for the front door. A very reasonable inference.
Oliver KC suggested Julia was attacked after admitting the visitor, after first throwing the mac over her shoulders to answer the door. Is there another possibility, consistent with the rest of the crime-scene evidence?

Yes, the scenario you paint is entirely plausible. An alternative might be both Wallace (wearing the mackintosh)and Julia fell against the fire during the attack.

Not sure why Parkes's testimony is "incredible", given that it is supported by a witness who says she heard him tell his story immediately after the event occurred. Then there is the generality of the other Atkinson witnesses, who at least demonstrate the story was around for decades, and not simply prompted by the 1981 broadcasts [which we know was impossible anyhow, given the precise chain of events in 1981]. And other unrelated witnesses who independently seem to have the same jigsaw-pieces in their heads.
Parry. Atkinsons' Garage. The car.

There is no witness to the conversation between Parry and Parkes, except Parkes (and Parry I guess who never confirmed the conversation - as you might expect). Everyone else relied on Parkes account and the events that followed Parkes telling people are not in question. I still find the confession to Parkes, the one bloody glove, the tale of disposing of the murder weapon all to an acquaintance with whom he is not on the best of terms, extremely unlikely - coupled with no known police action after hearing the story leaves me in great doubt about the story.

There may or may not be a kernel of truth in Parkes' account, but as his story was never tested, I think we need to treat it with caution.

[RodCrosby]

Re: the background "noise"

Sometimes, etenguy, it's best just to smile sweetly, and move on...

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

Logical?

Parry has to get an accomplice willing and dumb enough to take all the risk whilst Parry sits drinking tea at the Brine’s.

Then Parry comes up with a plan that can fall at the first hurdle 7 or 8 very simple and eminently possible ways. The plan can also fall at the final hurdle without another huge chunk of luck.

Then the plan comes up with a mere £4. Probably between a fifteenth and a twenty fifth of what they were expecting to be divided between two and yet he makes no effort to look for any more cash or valuables. He rips off a random cupboard door.

Then the accomplice then goes around turning off lights for no discernible reason.

Despite not being able to be tied to the weapon in any way our mystery accomplice walks out with an iron bar covered in blood and brains.

Then we have Julia not being able to recognise her own coat despite not owning a mackintosh.

And how fortunate that in a narrow street of terraced house, where the neighbours on both sides talk of hearing the Wallace’s door being knocked at various times, no one hears or sees Qualtrough. Especially as he would have had to have stood on the doorstep explaining the situation to Julia which meant what 30 seconds to a minute?

And to top this fantasy off we have Parry, who didn’t actually commit the murder, going to a garage where he’s not welcome, to get his car cleaned by someone that neither likes nor trusts him. He gets rid of the clean glove but keeps the bloodied one in a box in the car. And when Parkes naturally spots it he owns up to the crime and even tells him where the weapon is. Facts he tells to the police who, conveniently for Parry (lucky boy yet again) they are too corrupt to follow it up.

And I’ll add. Parkes describes the ‘glove’ as a mitten. How many thieves, robbers, sneak thieves does anyone know that wore mittens to commit a crime. Good job they weren’t those mittens that are joined by a cord!

How can this be logical?

Hi Herlock

You cover a lot of ground, but my comment was focused solely on how such a crime might be planned to progress. If the Parry/Accomplice theory is correct (and I know you are not of that view), then the scenario Rod describes would likely be the plan they intended to follow and does make logical sense as a plan.

[RodCrosby]

Is there another possibility, consistent with the rest of the crime-scene evidence?

"Yes, the scenario you paint is entirely plausible. An alternative might be both Wallace (wearing the mackintosh)and Julia fell against the fire during the attack"

No, no, within the context of a) that's not relevant.

OK. What about... as Mrs. Johnston said, Julia had thrown the mac' on because she was going to the front door...




And I say: "YES, because she was intent on LEAVING the house..."

Why would that be?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Re: the background "noise"

Sometimes, etenguy, it's best just to smile sweetly, and move on...

Your good at moving on when you can’t debate the point. Years of practice I guess.

[etenguy]

Is there another possibility, consistent with the rest of the crime-scene evidence?

"Yes, the scenario you paint is entirely plausible. An alternative might be both Wallace (wearing the mackintosh)and Julia fell against the fire during the attack"

No, no, within the context of a) that's not relevant.

OK. What about... as Mrs. Johnston said, Julia had thrown the mac' on because she was going to the front door...




And I say: "YES, because she was intent on LEAVING the house..."

Why would that be?

Given her state of health, there would need to be a strong reason for Julia to be leaving the house. It would be a coincidence if she were leaving or preparing to leave the house just as the accomplice arrives. I think the more plausible suggestion is the one you started with, that she was protecting herself from a blast of cold air when opening the door and Wallace's coat was closest to hand as she made her way to the door. If she were leaving the house, she would be more likely to wear her own coat, I think.

[RodCrosby]

Your good at moving on when you can’t debate the point. Years of practice I guess.

I won prizes, for debate, at both school and university.

I thus never felt impelled to enter the troll-Olympics, as a substitute achievement...

[RodCrosby]

Given her state of health, there would need to be a strong reason for Julia to be leaving the house.

And what might that strong reason be, given the rest of the crime scene?