Julia Wallace Murder Case

Parry was desperately in need of money we all know that. It's obvious Wallace didn't make the call, yet Parry was almost certainly involved somehow...really guys just think about this a little.

Remember Julia was killed bending to light the fireplace...no signs of struggle...so random robbery...no way. It was someone she knew and let in without a fuss, not a random 'Qualtrough' who could count on not being recognized. Just think; if the robbery was pulled off, Julia and William would surely know they 'had been had'. And look to indentify and apprehend Qualtrough.

There are many reasons why an ersatz intellectual like Wallace might want to knock off his elderly, 'intellectually inferior' wife who it seems had lied rather badly about her age. Motive doesn't need to be proved, and it isn't enough to convict to say 'who else would have wanted her dead but him?" but you guys are coming up with the opposite argument. The truth is if we make motive an issue at all, Wallace's motive is the only one that makes any sense in an obvious murder plot.

A. Qualtrough didn't know for certain if Wallace was going to the chess club. "But he will be there?" he asked Beattie.
B. So Monday was too early to commit the crime. Wallace could have arrived back from who-knows-where at any time.
C. Secondly, an essential part of the Qualtrough/Menlove Gardens plot was that Julia got to hear about it, so the robber could come knocking at the door the next night - his only chance of admittance being his claim to be Qualtrough.
D. So Tuesday it had to be. It was the only chance of getting Wallace far out of the way AND setting up Julia for the sucker-punch.

Murder is usually committed by either a family member or someone known to the the victim, random murders are the exception not the rule.
If Parry had arrived with a companion or on his own , the idea keep Julia busy whilst companion or Parry if on his own goes to toilet and grabs cash, One of them might have just seen a opportunity to hit her when she turned her back and bent to light the fire.....again a lot murders are spur of the moment acts gone wrong.
As for Julias age I think that is a red herring we look at the age gap through 20th century eyes, they were Victorians and large age gaps with married couples were quite common.

I think you're nearer the mark Rod. We could either say Julia knew of the up and coming visit to Menlove either because the Wallace's conversed, she was bound to ask where William was going that night etc - or it was so that when Qualtrough called unexpectantly on tuesday, he would be let in to wait to William's return.

We could go further and say the stranger then planned to do the sneak robbery only and it did go wrong when she spotted him and he had to commit the murder or that the murder was planned all along and the robbery was just done to make it look like that was the sole intention?

Either way, and especially because of the false statement given to the police which should have been checked out more thoroughly, Parry has to be involved. I'm thinking Parry, the amatuer actor who expected WHW to be at the cafe is Qualtrough - the false statement fits it too. But, he is not the murderer but did pick him up afterwards and dispose of the weapon which then fits with John Parkes/the Atkinson's story.

If only the police had taken that seriously, they may have searched those Priory Road drains and this thread would be a whole lot shorter ;)

Quote:

---

If only the police had taken that seriously, they may have searched those Priory Road drains and this thread would be a whole lot shorter

---

Useless nob heads !

Someone please answer me how Qualtrough could expect to get away with the robbery...how would the Wallace's not know was up...it just makes no sense at all. Anyway this is beating a dead horse; everyone's entitled to their own opinions

Come on, whether they would get away with it is irrelevant. Crimes like this happen all the time. Conmen and women who prey on old folk, gain entrance to their homes on a pretext, then rob them. Occasionally it goes disastrously wrong and a murder occurs.

The real question is: which strategem would offer the greatest chance of success?

Well, a person who knew the Wallaces well, the layout of their home, etc. might enlist an accomplice to do the deed, while staying firmly in the background themselves (for obvious reasons.)

Someone like Parry, for instance...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RodCrosby

Come on, whether they would get away with it is irrelevant. Crimes like this happen all the time. Conmen and women who prey on old folk, gain entrance to their homes on a pretext, then rob them. Occasionally it goes disastrously wrong and a murder occurs.

The real question is: which strategem would offer the greatest chance of success?

---

No, it matters whether they would get away with it. This isn't just a planned robbery, where I would obviously agree that there are poorly thought out plans/high risk ones. This is a carefully crafted, bordering on ingenious plot that was started the night before with a phone call.

To have this careful plot lead to: an accomplice of Parry is going to go posing as Qualtrough, rip Julia off, and leave undetected never to be heard of again and share the proceeds with Parry, while in the meantime the Wallace's forget about it and Julia is unable to finger the man just makes no sense at all to me and is not in the character of the plot. (Remember the man is already in trouble even if he is unable to steal; Parry would have dragged him into this Qualtrough scam.) Why have such an intricate plot for such a lame, risky, and measly reward. Why complicate things so much and 'go to such problems?!?'

I admit I am somewhat prejudiced as I have some inside info about Gannon's upcoming book. I have no doubt whatsoever Wallace was the mastermind.

Your 'inside info' sounds juicy ATU but we can only go on what's known and published at the moment, or I can anyway.

If Q is the robber (assuming robbery was initially at one stage the sole intention) it could well be that whether it be Parry or someone else, they planned to get WHW out of the house so that they could carry out the robbery more easily. Parry would have known to expect a nice pile of monthly money, he might not have known about WHW having been off ill - but wasn't the monthly collection the week later anyway?

The robbery could be achieved by calling upon Julia and saying WHW got it wrong and could he come in and wait for his return. It could of course be nothing of the sort. Isn't the multiple possibilities something that makes this case so intriguing.

Unless blackmail was involved, can you see Parry, who was grassed up to the Pru bosses by WHW and who called him sexually odd and told RWE in 1966 that he knew a lot more but promised his dad that not for 1000 pounds would he talk about it, being involved with WHW?

JG's book might well change my mind, but until then...........;)

I don't think the ingenuity of the crime can reveal per se what type of crime it was intended to be. There are sophisticated frauds, clumsy frauds, clever murders and stupid murders.

No reason why a sophisticated fraud should not turn into a stupid murder, either. Perhaps all the more so if two people were involved...

I do hope Gannon is not going for a variation on "The Insurance Man" book. A huge disappointment, if so. It's a ludicrous theory.

I have to say that my first thoughts are that WHW, Parry and Marsden working together on this murder is not only unnecessarily messy but highly unlikely due to the relationships between the 3 beforehand.

I take it nobody is giving any credence to Tom Slemen's theory that it was John Johnston?

That theory to me exonerates Parry which I cannot see myself.

Also, was it such a masterplan or just bad detective work with an attitude of 'we have our man' despite other possible avenues to explore which weren't - even including his route and timing to the chess club on the Q night.

Why would Wallace, even before he was arrested himself, try to finger Parry? He would only be putting a noose around his own neck, as well as Parry's, if he was truly the prime mover of the plot to kill Julia.

It's nonsense.

Wallace, after his conviction was overturned, continued to accuse Parry in his private diary. He would have no earthly reason to do this, if they really were co-conspirators.

I'd love to know where Winifred Duke got the name 'Harris' from as early as 1934. Wallace was dead by then, so presumably not from him. But from whom? Someone in the Police? John Parkes? Or did she have access to Wallace's diaries? That is a fascinating question...

Wallace's diary is obviously written for an audience...think outside the box fellows.

This is getting silly. If Wallace wanted an audience he could have confessed to his part in the murder - after his conviction was quashed - and had the satisfaction of watching Parry & whoever hanged for a crime he had orchestrated. [there being no double jeopardy in 1931].

That would truly have been The Perfect Murder....

The Qualtrough plan was obviously a murder plot from the get go; your planned robbery theory with Parry as the mastermind is silly. You've been stating it or some version of it for as long as I can remember and don't answer criticisms of it... I still don't get why they couldn't just rob Wallace whenever Parry knew he was out (like the night previous at the chess club)...and also I don't getwhy Parry couldn't come and do it himself. The crime scene indicated a poorly staged robbery...Murphy may have made critical mistakes; but he pretty much eviscerated the planned robbery scenario **** well in his book.