Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

By the way, I should just point out that according to the forensics experts working the case, the blood pattern on the mackintosh implied the attacker had been wearing it. It is also pointed out that the attacker apparently removed the jacket leaving a distinctive blood stain on one of the sleeves (the right sleeve perhaps it was? I forget)... We also learn that the killer is apparently right handed - Gordon Parry is supposedly left handed.

If we follow the series of events proposed by the experts - we see that supposedly someone put on the mackintosh, battered Julia with an unknown weapon (wrapped if it was the iron bar), then removed it and put it under her body. The silence to me indicates she may have indeed been bending to the fireplace, as a frontal attack where she's sitting on that chair would give her just a little more chance to react than if she was hit from the blindside while getting up from lighting the fire. We also see spent matches under her body.

The state of the mack is important because according to forensics we can expect that the killer's hand was coated in blood and used that hand to remove the jacket (hence the sleeve stain), there is not any blood found on anything else in the home (the notes and toilet pan may have been placed by the investigators, it's proposed)...

So how did the killer go from having blood coated hands to then being so clean without using any drains? To my mind, as we've discussed, it suggests gloves which were then removed/put on, or that the mackintosh/hearth rug was used to wipe his hands upon, but it seems a bit silly to do that instead of just using water to get it all off. Alternatively, there was a second person who touched everything (such as door handles) so the killer did not have to leave any marks.

We also learn from the experts that the killer supposedly wiped his shoes on the rug. This is also important because you wouldn't think that wiping your feet on the rug could get ALL traces of blood off of the bottom of the shoe. I'm not sure if the suggestion is accurate as nothing at all is tracked out of the room, so if it did happen again we can expect either the attacker donned or removed shoes after the attack.

We can surmise from the forensic suggestions that this was a relatively bloody affair, with stained shoes/feet, hands/gloves, jacket, and - it was said - likely the face and possibly hair of the man. Wallace left that home impeccably clean, not even benzidine could detect anything on any of his garments (not sure if they tested ALL clothing in his home)... But you see the bloodier the attack, and the more steps he needs to take before heading for the tram, the less and less likely it becomes that he had enough time to carry out the attack.

---

If the jacket had been thrown over Julia's head, then it becomes more likely that Wallace would EASILY have had time to commit the act. With 100% protection like that he doesn't need to dispose of anything, is guaranteed to be totally clean, and could probably kill Julia and get out of the home within 5 to 10 minutes tops.

But the forensic suggestion that it was worn changes things completely, and we now have to envision the image of a blood-soaked killer, with blood coated shoes, gloves, face, etc... There's no evidence that any rag was used... Total incineration should take care of that (and the gloves), but then I'm not sure if forensics back then were advanced enough to detect trace materials that have been completely burned to ash. They did detect the burned pieces of mackintosh near the fire.

But essentially, this is why I suspect a neighbor may have been involved, as they could carry out the attack and get back into their home unseen with relative ease. With such flimsy splatter protection, the idea Wallace did it himself and got out so squeaky clean in 10 minutes becomes hard to accept... And Julia's stomach contents suggest a later time of death (IF Wallace told the truth about when they ate - which we can't know!)... Plus the fact rigor was determined based on the FAKE age of the woman, and we can expect it to set in faster in a more elderly woman.

[WallaceWackedHer]

But if he’d thrown it over her head there would have been no blood spatter at all.

Im not suggesting that Wallace relied on luck. He might have expected to get blood on his face intending to wash up in the back kitchen sink and the police had found traces the defence could easily have said that the killer (not Wallace) didn’t want to leave the house with blood on his face. But in the end he was fortunate.

Then again, as I’ve suggested before, if Wallace had gotten blood on him might he not have used chemicals from his lab to clean the sink?

Actually, when I’ve pressed my point about Wallace avoiding the Parlour to go upstairs and people have asked why, I’ve suggested that it might have been because he’d used chemicals but when he got back inside he saw that he’d left the container in the kitchen so he needed to take it upstairs to his lab.

I've actually always had that in the back of my mind, the knowledge that Wallace is a chemist with a laboratory room. If there was a way to beat a benzidine test he'd probably know how to mix the right chemicals up to do it... It's always in the back of my subconscious stirring around with potential uses. However I don't think the drains were even benzidine'd. According to Antony's book...

Also btw I wouldn't say that him wearing the mack rather than throwing it over her means he's innocent for how dumb that is... Even a cold and calculating man might make a little oversight... Same with the fire... It's like, suggestive... But killers are human and we can't expect perfection... He must have realized how bad using his own mack would look to investigators rofl. If he had so much time to spare I'd have concentrated hard on flaming that jacket beyond the point of being identifiable.

But that combined with the fact that I do think he'd be drenched... I can't see him having time... In my view the iron bar could well be the murder weapon. It is unstained - and no rust is found in Julia's wounds - so it's either NOT the weapon, or it was wrapped/Julia's head covered. They never did find the poker...

I think MacFall said the subsequent strikes also sent spray up the walls as well? It's hard to tell what he means. But definitely if that is true I feel he'd have a bit too much blood on him to be able to then go out on that trip etc... And even if he didn't get much on himself, he surely would have anticipated that he would, and should have planned for such an outcome. After 11 strikes he should have expected he'd be soaked...

It just seems so tight... 10 minutes after Julia is dead he leaves his house totally clean. A mack by itself is not adequate protection. Hair, facial hair, possibly trousers unless he knelt... It was suggested there were stains as though someone had wiped their shoe on the hearth rug? Not by MacFall but another forensic scientist. I wish I could ask MacFall about the possibility the blood up the walls was placed artificially by flicking the soaked jacket at the walls... Or if he thinks it may have been thrown over her head on any of the blows...

Think me, you, and the other poster are the only ones still discussing this case lol.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But if MacFall's opinion is believed, the assailant wore the mackintosh when the first blow was struck. In my opinion this makes it less likely he (Wallace) committed the act alone. I do not tend to believe the window of time is necessarily adequate to take steps required to ensure everything you are wearing is clean (or incinerated: e.g. gloves and hats) as well as your face and hair etc, in the time he apparently had to act. To me it doesn't seem long enough. I think the staging was probably done before the killing so that part has no bearing on the time window IMO. The crime scene blood containment though, is a bit weird.

Ah. Ignore post 2676.

I think that Wallace would have had ample time. I don’t think that anything needed incinerating or any massive clean up was required.

Cash box already emptied.
Cupboard door pulled off (Julia told it had come off and that he’d repair it tomorrow)
Door closes on Alan Close around 6.38.
Julia dead by 6.40 with the mackintosh pushed under her body.
Weapon in a bag or wrapped in paper 6.41
He leaves at 6.50 giving him time to for a cup of tea

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
I do not much like to rely on chance and coincidence though (e.g. the attacker was just super lucky and didn't get a single drop of blood on himself). These factors are usually present in cases, but in a premeditated attack, I would think it would be very foolish to wear the mack rather than throw it over Julia's head.

But if he’d thrown it over her head there would have been no blood spatter at all.

Im not suggesting that Wallace relied on luck. He might have expected to get blood on his face intending to wash up in the back kitchen sink and the police had found traces the defence could easily have said that the killer (not Wallace) didn’t want to leave the house with blood on his face. But in the end he was fortunate.

Then again, as I’ve suggested before, if Wallace had gotten blood on him might he not have used chemicals from his lab to clean the sink?

Actually, when I’ve pressed my point about Wallace avoiding the Parlour to go upstairs and people have asked why, I’ve suggested that it might have been because he’d used chemicals but when he got back inside he saw that he’d left the container in the kitchen so he needed to take it upstairs to his lab.

[Herlock Sholmes]

4) MacFall claimed the first and most severe injury was to the front of the head. He said the blood patterning on the mackintosh is consistent with someone who had been wearing it. He also said only the first wound spurted blood all around the room

Ive no books to hand so was he talking about Julia wearing it or William?

[Herlock Sholmes]

2) And about the forensics I'm not really sure... The fact is, the containment is very weird for repeated heavy blows that produced such dramatic injuries. The "blood smothered room" to me looks almost like a showroom it's so neat and tidy. Literally WHERE are the splashes of blood 8 foot up the walls? I can't see ANY whatsoever?

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--xoskagUY....+26+21.19.jpg

Literally where is it? I only see the pool on the ground. Apparently it was "all around the room, above the piano" etc. according to experts

I know what you mean WWH but I think that it’s more to do with the photography not picking up fine spray at a distance. I’ve always wondered why the photographer didn’t take a snap or two of the blood spatter?

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) How can you throw it out in the rubbish? Lol. That's so much worse. How about the hat and gloves? Surely he was wearing those items, and they were incinerated?

WWH, have you ever typed something and then when you read it back later you can’t recall typing it? I’m completely confused here and if I didn’t know better I’d have sworn that someone had hacked my account and edited my post.

I genuinely, for the life of me, can’t understand why I put ‘”and not just throw it out with the rubbish?’” I can’t even blame auto-correct. It makes no sense at all.

please ignore that moment of insanity.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I still say that the mackintosh points very, very strongly at Wallace.

1) How can you throw it out in the rubbish? Lol. That's so much worse. How about the hat and gloves? Surely he was wearing those items, and they were incinerated?

2) And about the forensics I'm not really sure... The fact is, the containment is very weird for repeated heavy blows that produced such dramatic injuries. The "blood smothered room" to me looks almost like a showroom it's so neat and tidy. Literally WHERE are the splashes of blood 8 foot up the walls? I can't see ANY whatsoever?

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--xoskagUYus/ULPdRH-3ymI/AAAAAAAAbrE/bgQtDRLmNRE/s1600/ScreenHunter_42+Nov.+26+21.19.jpg

Literally where is it? I only see the pool on the ground. Apparently it was "all around the room, above the piano" etc. according to experts.

Apparently MacFall claims the killing blow was delivered to the front of Julia, above and in front of the ear. So this would likely be a sidewards blow right? Considering it's to the side of the head where the ear is? And the spray then should go away from the attacker if that's the case? Very, very risky to rely upon I would have thought. Although he did suggest that.

But then after this, despite all the heavy attacks to the skull, why is the room so clean, why was there no more spray of blood on subsequent strikes? Was it because she was hit the further times quite some time after death when the heart would no longer be pumping? Otherwise I wonder if it's possible to avoid spray on the followup strikes without a barrier of some sort... I wish he would have been questioned on the possibility of the jacket being thrown over the head prior to the attack.

3) You are correct:

And you found the burnt pieces (of the mackintosh) right in front of the fire ? - Yes, right across the front.

So it was indeed burned on that gas fire.

4) MacFall claimed the first and most severe injury was to the front of the head. He said the blood patterning on the mackintosh is consistent with someone who had been wearing it. He also said only the first wound spurted blood all around the room.

5) You didn't, but that was the suggestion raised by MacFall, that only the first strike caused blood to spurt all over.

---

I do not much like to rely on chance and coincidence though (e.g. the attacker was just super lucky and didn't get a single drop of blood on himself). These factors are usually present in cases, but in a premeditated attack, I would think it would be very foolish to wear the mack rather than throw it over Julia's head.

It would also of course be quite stupid to use your own jacket, and throwing it over her offers 100% guaranteed splatter protection. Like you say about Parry's alibi, could someone really be so stupid as to incriminate themselves like that? It's possible. Criminals can and do make mistakes... Although with such heavy premeditation usually obvious things are considered...

But if MacFall's opinion is believed, the assailant wore the mackintosh when the first blow was struck. In my opinion this makes it less likely he (Wallace) committed the act alone. I do not tend to believe the window of time is necessarily adequate to take steps required to ensure everything you are wearing is clean (or incinerated: e.g. gloves and hats) as well as your face and hair etc, in the time he apparently had to act. To me it doesn't seem long enough. I think the staging was probably done before the killing so that part has no bearing on the time window IMO. The crime scene blood containment though, is a bit weird.

if the mack had been thrown over her then certainly the attack could be carried out almost instantly, and him leave the home like, a minute later, but apparently if it was worn, he would have got blood upon him (or at least had to anticipate a lot WOULD get on him) and that makes the time window narrower in my view. Perhaps too narrow.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Buttons can't prove it's his jacket lol. You have to accept he burned his hat and gloves entirely... That's if he wore the mackintosh.

No, but it might appear strange and suggestive to the police if they’d found the remains of a burnt coat. Why burn a coat and not just throw it out with the rubbish? I think attempting to burn incriminating evidence would have been far more risky unless he’d had time to stand next to the fire to make sure the destruction was complete, which he didn’t.

I don't think anyone with any sense would wear it. It's so obviously smarter and more reliable to throw it over her head. That's GUARANTEED splatter protection, and solo Wallace would be able to use one of HER jackets or something that wouldn't incriminate him to a ridiculous degree. Also I read the mackintosh was a lot more burned than the skirt.

I’m not against the idea of Wallace throwing it over her head, it’s been mentioned before, it’s another way for Wallace to have committed the crime. I’m not an expert in forensics but wouldn’t they have been able to tell if it had been used like that? Bone/brain fragments on the coat etc?

Those grid fireplaces are meant to protect from accidental firesetting like that. I suppose it's possible if she fell in headfirst with the mack over her head, then you wouldn't get staining on the fireplace/grid etc. But those grids are supposed to provide protection from that sort of thing.

I don’t know WWH but I don’t know that anyone has ever suggested that it would have been impossible due to the type of fireplace.

Also your scenario just now means he wasn't protected from splatter on the initial blow. The bar behind the fireplace that was found had no stains upon it, and no rust was found in Julia's wounds. This is more consistent with there being some type of covering used, either on the bar or on Julia's head.

He might just have been fortunate. Maybe there wasn’t much blood from the first blow? I wonder if the first blow might not have broken the skin? Maybe he caught Julia with a glancing blow with rendered her either fully or partially unconscious?

Only one wound sprayed blood? The rest did not? In that case, clearly there was something containing the blood from going up the walls etc. on subsequent strikes, causing it to pool instead.

[B] I didn’t say that only one wound sprayed blood WWH? Maybe I’ve said something that was a bit unclear? Apologies if so.

I still say that the mackintosh points very, very strongly at Wallace.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Of course we can’t recreate the full murder but I don’t think it’s impossible or even unlikely that it was something like this - Wallace was standing at the mirror adjusting his tie - he calls for Julia to bring in his mackintosh - Julia brings in the mackintosh and stands next to William - He picks up the bar and strikes a blow - Julia drops the mackintosh but its too late to get her hands up as some form of protection - the mackintosh falls on the fire grate and Julia’s legs give way and she falls against the fire grate causing the singeing to her skirt - the coat catches light - Wallace pulls Julia away from the fire, picks up the mackintosh and pats out the smouldering- he then either puts on the coat or uses it as a shield and delivers the rest of the blows kneeling next to Julia’s body.

Case solved

Buttons can't prove it's his jacket lol. You have to accept he burned his hat and gloves entirely... That's if he wore the mackintosh.

I don't think anyone with any sense would wear it. It's so obviously smarter and more reliable to throw it over her head. That's GUARANTEED splatter protection, and solo Wallace would be able to use one of HER jackets or something that wouldn't incriminate him to a ridiculous degree. Also I read the mackintosh was a lot more burned than the skirt.

Those grid fireplaces are meant to protect from accidental firesetting like that. I suppose it's possible if she fell in headfirst with the mack over her head, then you wouldn't get staining on the fireplace/grid etc. But those grids are supposed to provide protection from that sort of thing.

Also your scenario just now means he wasn't protected from splatter on the initial blow. The bar behind the fireplace that was found had no stains upon it, and no rust was found in Julia's wounds. This is more consistent with there being some type of covering used, either on the bar or on Julia's head.

Only one wound sprayed blood? The rest did not? In that case, clearly there was something containing the blood from going up the walls etc. on subsequent strikes, causing it to pool instead.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Also the front room fireplace looks like one of those "grid pattern" ones, so setting something alight using it is less likely to be accidental. Also there is no evidence at all that Julia had fallen forward into the fireplace. If she did, there would probably be some blood patterning upon the fireplace where she fell, unless it was wiped clean. And if she fell into it, it would be like, headfirst, not skirt-first. They used matches back in those days to light stuff, so there's more than one possible source of fire, there were spent matches found underneath her as I recall.

Of course we can’t recreate the full murder but I don’t think it’s impossible or even unlikely that it was something like this - Wallace was standing at the mirror adjusting his tie - he calls for Julia to bring in his mackintosh - Julia brings in the mackintosh and stands next to William - He picks up the bar and strikes a blow - Julia drops the mackintosh but its too late to get her hands up as some form of protection - the mackintosh falls on the fire grate and Julia’s legs give way and she falls against the fire grate causing the singeing to her skirt - the coat catches light - Wallace pulls Julia away from the fire, picks up the mackintosh and pats out the smouldering- he then either puts on the coat or uses it as a shield and delivers the rest of the blows kneeling next to Julia’s body.

Case solved

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's a hindsight thing... Like where you'd come home and be like "oh f*ck it didn't work!". It would definitely seem like the best idea, you surely wouldn't conceive that you'd come home having put it into a fully stoked fire and find it still in once piece. In any case it's better than leaving it half burned by his dead wife.

As you’ve said that criminals give dumb alibi’s it’s also true that in true crime the incriminating remains of items have been found in fires. A fire can died down leaving a small part not fully burned. There were also the buttons. When Wallace got back into the house, with the Johnston’s outside, he could hardly have spend time poking around in the embers trying to dig out some charred buttons.

The mackintosh wasn’t half burned under his wife. It was a bit more than singed. More consistant with it falling against the fire or being unintentionally draped into it.

I have to repeat WWH why was it there and how did it get there?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's happened many times before, and will happen many times again, that someone knowingly gives a dumb alibi. If he was panicked in the moment with police etc. suspecting him of ringing the chess club, it's more than conceivable, and we can point out thousands of such incidents in true crime.

The fact is that he gave a false alibi. A more likely scenario if he was wholly innocent was that he didn't have a good enough alibi for the time and felt threatened under suspicion, so made something up on the spot. To suggest he mixed up his evenings seems incredibly farfetched, definitely stretching the truth.

It doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty. Innocent people have given stupid alibis before. But it is the only real strong point against him. And arguably his parents trying to get him smuggled out, but you could say they just didn't believe their son about his innocence etc, or were scared because he was a suspect, etc. I'd be VERY, VERY surprised if he killed Julia. VERY surprised. But not surprised if he made the phone call. I'm of the opinion that he was tricked into doing so

I really find it almost impossible to accept that Parry could have been such an unmitigated imbecile. He went into details about what he did that night. Why not just say “I think that I was with my girlfriend but I’m not sure as to times?” I believe that Parry was completely innocent of any involvement in this case. We have his alibi for Monday night - either a lie or a mistake. We have his Tuesday alibi which is airtight. We have Parkes and the most unbelievable statement in the history of crime given 50 years after the event and previously repeated by no one. And then we have William Wallace pointing the finger at him. And yet over the years Parry has become public enemy number one in the Wallace case. I believed that the Qualtrough caller was the man who killed Julia. The murder itself was more like a ‘personal’ murder and less like the result of blows to silence. It speaks of things like anger, resentment or hatred. Such emotions could only come from someone that knew her intimately. This could only describe William. I understand your point about ‘who would the police believe Wallace or Parry’ But I just can’t believe that Wallace would trick Parry into making the call that resulted in Julia’s death. A murder is risky enough as it is without piling on more risk. He simply could have been certain that Parry might not have had a bout of conscience and gone to the police to finger him as the murderer. Or even that he wouldn’t crack under police pressure if they felt that he might be the killer. I can almost hear the questions “come on Parry you knew where Wallace kept his money. Mrs Wallace would have let you into the house and your a known thief.”

[WallaceWackedHer]

The fact that Parry confidently gave this alibi and mentioned that she’d been teaching somewhere sounds to me like someone who simple got his evenings mixed up. I think it could very well have been a mistake from someone who hadn’t prepared an alibi because he didn’t expect to have needed one. I just don’t see Parry being so colossally stupid. And remember, Lily Lloyd and her mother weren’t interviewed until two days later. We can’t be expected to believe that Parry didn’t mention his police interview with her and thus he would have found out that he’d given an incorrect alibi which would have raised alarm bells in a murder investigation. Why didn’t he simply go to the police and say “ I’ve made a mistake on my movements on Monday night.” Anything would have been better than potentially being caught out by the police.

It's happened many times before, and will happen many times again, that someone knowingly gives a dumb alibi. If he was panicked in the moment with police etc. suspecting him of ringing the chess club, it's more than conceivable, and we can point out thousands of such incidents in true crime.

The fact is that he gave a false alibi. A more likely scenario if he was wholly innocent was that he didn't have a good enough alibi for the time and felt threatened under suspicion, so made something up on the spot. To suggest he mixed up his evenings seems incredibly farfetched, definitely stretching the truth.

It doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty. Innocent people have given stupid alibis before. But it is the only real strong point against him. And arguably his parents trying to get him smuggled out, but you could say they just didn't believe their son about his innocence etc, or were scared because he was a suspect, etc. I'd be VERY, VERY surprised if he killed Julia. VERY surprised. But not surprised if he made the phone call. I'm of the opinion that he was tricked into doing so...

But think of the massive risk if there was a piece left unburnt which would have been entirely possible. He certainly wouldn’t have had time to fish through the ashes to retrieve the buttons and even if he’d had time what would he have done with half a dozen charred coat buttons?

I think that the reason he used his own jacket was that it was a way of getting Julia into the Parlour in the first place. If he’d simply called her name she might have just stood in the doorway to reply. By bring the coat to him, and with it in her hands, he has her right next to him near the fireplace.

That's a hindsight thing... Like where you'd come home and be like "oh f*ck it didn't work!". It would definitely seem like the best idea, you surely wouldn't conceive that you'd come home having put it into a fully stoked fire and find it still in once piece. In any case it's better than leaving it half burned by his dead wife...

Because here's more hindsight: If it was absolutely cindered, for one thing I doubt the police would be able to recognize what it is, or even suspect it might be something untoward, and for another thing, it would be unidentifiable as his own jacket. It would be very easy to argue in court that it was a random assailant's jacket, and to get away from the scene un-bloodied and without leaving evidence he had attempted to destroy the evidence. The fact it is Wallace's own jacket is more than a little incriminating.

If Wallace committed this act, the difference is, it was very well premeditated (as opposed to a burglary gone wrong), so he should have had an obvious disposal plan in his head. We can figure he likely wore a hat and gloves, and a rag (to wipe his face off), or SOMETHING to wipe his face clean, and all of these items were apparently successfully incinerated it would seem... Yet he decides to leave a partially burned jacket, easily identifiable as his own, with his dead wife's body, soaked in blood.

He also wouldn't have relied upon luck to get away with it (getting lucky with blood spray) with such premeditation, and also it sounds a bit farfetched to say he must have held it up over his moustache lol. It just feels like one of those things where people bend the truth with bizarre-seeming possibilities a bit to fit a certain narrative. It's plausible he could have, but it feels more like a "prove he did it at all costs" type of thing.

Also the front room fireplace looks like one of those "grid pattern" ones, so setting something alight using it is less likely to be accidental. Also there is no evidence at all that Julia had fallen forward into the fireplace. If she did, there would probably be some blood patterning upon the fireplace where she fell, unless it was wiped clean. And if she fell into it, it would be like, headfirst, not skirt-first. They used matches back in those days to light stuff, so there's more than one possible source of fire, there were spent matches found underneath her as I recall.

---

Also he could have got Julia into the parlor very easily. Just say like, the appointment is cancelled and to set the room up for music. Or Qualtrough is coming here now, please set up the parlor for him. He said on trial that, if he asked her, she would set the parlor up. It doesn't take a stretch to imagine how easily he could have got her into the room.

If he'd done that, he could have bashed her head in far easier when she went to the fireplace to light it. But MacFall suggests she was sitting on the chair, stooped slightly forward with her head turned to the left as though in conversation (or perhaps as though about to react to someone coming in the door). The first blow actually struck her in the front of the head right? I forget. Although it was suggested she may have bene hit when getting UP from lighting the fire, and we do see those spent matches.

I also find it really strange that the report states there was blood everywhere, all over the walls, paintings... I've seen the crime scene photos and for the life of me, apart from the puddle on the ground, I cannot see any blood spray at all. Where is it? The room looks IMPECCABLE, like a show room almost...

And you know how the killer could be CERTAIN he would avoid blood spray? By throwing a jacket or something of that nature over Julia's head when he hit her. That COMPLETELY protects him from the blood spray.

Wallace wasn't a Kasparov tier chess genius or whatever though, so if he'd neglected to do a few things he "SHOULD" have done then it wouldn't be impossible to believe. We can't expect everyone to act with perfection, although premeditation does help to avoid leaving vital clues.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Did he have time to perform the act and clean his face and moustache? And if he did, why didn't he use some other jacket. Using your own is quite incriminating. I'd probably have purchased something else from like, a thrift store or whatever, in advance, or just generally use anything that wasn't mine lol. And certainly I would make sure the thing was absolutely reduced to ash.

There was a fire going in the kitchen, just chuck the thing in there as he goes out the back door. You'd think it would be completely incinerated by the time he got home, surely? It would be pretty dumb to not think of that.

But think of the massive risk if there was a piece left unburnt which would have been entirely possible. He certainly wouldn’t have had time to fish through the ashes to retrieve the buttons and even if he’d had time what would he have done with half a dozen charred coat buttons?

I think that the reason he used his own jacket was that it was a way of getting Julia into the Parlour in the first place. If he’d simply called her name she might have just stood in the doorway to reply. By bring the coat to him, and with it in her hands, he has her right next to him near the fireplace.