Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure you agree on the absolute ingenuity of choosing Gordon Parry as the caller. Gordon CAN'T ever say he's made the call, that's the point. If he did, literally nobody would have believed him.

Imagine crooked Gordon claiming: "yes I made the call but William tricked me into doing it so he could murder his wife!" after finding out (unexpectedly) that Julia has been killed.

William's case was so shaky anyway that he got off on appeal. I am saying honestly, the police would have assumed Parry called and sent someone in to burgle the house and Julia wound up dead in the process. At the time the issue of the door locks wouldn't have been so important since there'd been something like 12 recent burglaries all committed in the area using a duplicate/skeleton key according to newspaper reports of the time, plus a crime scene nearly identical to a very recent burglary only a month prior (aside from the murdered woman). Aside from that, part of the defence's line was that someone used the name Qualtrough to get into the home, so with Parry on trial that of course could be an argument from the prosecution.

William had plenty of testimony that he had the most perfect marriage, no motive to kill Julia, and exoneration from having made the call which he thought would be placed later than Beattie received it.

On the other hand, they had proof Gordon knew William went to the club there, and that a notice board showed the dates when he should be there (by the way, seeing when he has and hasn't attended is indecipherable as far as I'm concerned unless you can explain what those random letters and symbols mean). They know he's a crook, they know he has been into the Wallace's home, knows the location of the cash box, and William's collecting schedule (if that's really a factor of importance), and that there have been many burglaries in the neighborhood recently.

How can you say that by a country mile you don't think Gordon made the call? It's almost as difficult to exonerate Gordon from calling as it is to exonerate William for masterminding/committing the murder based on his strange behaviors (which he believed was going to make him look innocent).

By the way my friend made the point that if the Johnstons claim to have been the last to see Julia alive and then appear when William returns and enter the home, suspicion would fall upon themselves. But forget that for now, because that is undecided if they were involved, but Parry as the caller is pretty solid.

Why would Wallace involve Parry in the crime by tricking him into making the call and then straight away pointing the police in his direction? And then, after he’s released, he keeps on picking at the scab by saying that he’s sure that Parry was the murderer? You don’t involve someone in a conspiracy to commit murder and then try and drop them in it with the police. What if the police, because of Parry’s record, had suspected that his alibi might have been false? What if they’d begun to focus their investigation onto him; talking to the Brine’s and the other guests to try and shake his alibi? Constantly putting the pressure onto Parry. Can we honestly think that Wallace would have trusted someone like Parry to have kept his head under intense pressure?

What if they had just focused on the phone call and told Parry that they believed that he’d made the call and got one of his ne’er do well mates to rob Wallace and in the process kill Julia? He had no alibi for the call but an alibi for the murder. As you’ve said, he knew about Wallace’s business, the cash, the layout of the house. Parry would have been an obvious choice. What option would Parry have had in the end but to have admitted - ok, I made the call but only because Wallace asked me to (or paid me too) because he told me that he was seeing another woman and wanted an excuse to be out of the house. Would Wallace have risked the gallows purely on his reputation versus Parry’s?

Another question is wouldnt Parry have been a bit suspicious that the straight-laced, conservative, boring, contentedly married Wallace wanted him to lie for him in such a way as the phone call? Wallace was hardly the practical joker type. He was hardly the affair type either.

There were always going going to be risks in committing murder but Wallace wasn’t reckless by nature. Far from it in fact. I can’t see other than Wallace would have wanted to keep all risks to a minimum. Involving a loose cannon like Parry would have been a massive risk.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I'm not sure you agree on the absolute ingenuity of choosing Gordon Parry as the caller. Gordon CAN'T ever say he's made the call, that's the point. If he did, literally nobody would have believed him.

Imagine crooked Gordon claiming: "yes I made the call but William tricked me into doing it so he could murder his wife!" after finding out (unexpectedly) that Julia has been killed.

William's case was so shaky anyway that he got off on appeal. I am saying honestly, the police would have assumed Parry called and sent someone in to burgle the house and Julia wound up dead in the process. At the time the issue of the door locks wouldn't have been so important since there'd been something like 12 recent burglaries all committed in the area using a duplicate/skeleton key according to newspaper reports of the time, plus a crime scene nearly identical to a very recent burglary only a month prior (aside from the murdered woman). Aside from that, part of the defence's line was that someone used the name Qualtrough to get into the home, so with Parry on trial that of course could be an argument from the prosecution.

William had plenty of testimony that he had the most perfect marriage, no motive to kill Julia, and exoneration from having made the call which he thought would be placed later than Beattie received it.

On the other hand, they had proof Gordon knew William went to the club there, and that a notice board showed the dates when he should be there (by the way, seeing when he has and hasn't attended is indecipherable as far as I'm concerned unless you can explain what those random letters and symbols mean). They know he's a crook, they know he has been into the Wallace's home, knows the location of the cash box, and William's collecting schedule (if that's really a factor of importance), and that there have been many burglaries in the neighborhood recently.

How can you say that by a country mile you don't think Gordon made the call? It's almost as difficult to exonerate Gordon from calling as it is to exonerate William for masterminding/committing the murder based on his strange behaviors (which he believed was going to make him look innocent).

By the way my friend made the point that if the Johnstons claim to have been the last to see Julia alive and then appear when William returns and enter the home, suspicion would fall upon themselves. But forget that for now, because that is undecided if they were involved, but Parry as the caller is pretty solid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that overwhelmingly and by a country mile the likeliest scenario is that William made the call and killed Julia alone. That the marriage was an unhappy one and William saw the last few years of his life nursemaiding a wife who was increasingly looking and acting like his mother. With his kidney complaint he would had reasonable reason to assume that he didn’t have many years left. Julia was a millstone. The sheer viciousness and overkill of the murder point heavily toward a crime of anger and passion that had built up over time rather than a kill to silence or a planned hit. There are doubts of course with the main one being the one that you’ve raised about Wallace being potentially seen on the Monday night. Apart from that I don’t see an issue. I believe that he had ample time to have committed the murder and got to his first tram. The phone voice was an older man. Only Wallace knew for certain that he was going to chess that night. Only Wallace could have known for certain that he intended to go to MGE. Only Wallace had control of how long he stayed out that night. What if he’d given up sooner and gotten home much earlier? The messing around with the locks was play acting by Wallace to give the impression that the real killer was still inside the house and possibly for him to be seen by neighbours trying to get in. Although the backdoor lock was faulty we have to remember that Wallace had never previously been unable to get in. Only on this night when his wife lay dead in the Parlour.

There was no reason for another killer to turn out the lights but there was for Wallace.
There is no sensible reason why the mackintosh was bunched up beneath Julia. It can only have been deliberately placed there and Wallace is the only candidate for that.
A killer other than Wallace would have had no reason to take precautions against blood spatter leaving it extremely likely that there would have been blood in some form outside of the Parlour.
The fact that Wallace avoided the Parlour makes no sense other than that he wanted to go upstairs first.

Wallace, as we know, was an intelligent man. If he went to the trouble of creating the Qualtrough plan I find it impossible to believe that, if he’d got the Johnston’s at his disposal, he’d have missed out on the childishly obvious ways to cement his innocence. Just take one of he three as an example:

Mrs Johnston - I went out into the yard at around 7.00to bring in my washing when I saw Mrs Wallace in her yard. I said hello and she said that she was looking for her cat. We chatted for two minutes and she told me that Mr Wallace had gone out on business then she went back inside.

With a simple statement like this it would have been game over. Wallace would never even have been accused.

I think that with Wallace alone there’s less to go wrong. He doesn’t have to trust the dodgy Parry with his life. He doesn’t have to involve a couple that he barely knew into committing a vicious murder. We don’t have to make an assumption like Johnston being the housebreaker.

I do accept that I could be wrong WWH and that you and your friend could be right but I’m naturally reluctant to go to a more complex/involved scenario when a simpler one is to hand.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I honestly feel people automatically discard the Johnstons because the man who first fingered them is a lunatic who literally writes books about Jesus being a space alien. Nobody wants to associate their own beliefs with a madman. But there is something to it... For one thing, John allegedly confessed to killing Julia. The man who stated this, Stan, knew weird obscure facts about the case like the name of Julia's cat that someone who hadn't heavily researched it would know, which gives credence to the fact that John may indeed have revealed certain details.

The problem is, the confession of John as reported by Slemen is very unlikely (although marginally more likely than Rod's theory I saw on yoliverpool or whatever that forum is called where she hugs William's mackintosh for comfort etc). For those unfamiliar I will explain Slemen's theory below:

John says he was the Anfield housebreaker, and that he had placed the call to the chess club. Florence has Julia's cat, Puss, and is intending to use it as a lure to get Julia out of the home. However, on the murder night, he watched Julia go down the entry wearing William's mackintosh.

Problem #1: William never said she was ever wearing the jacket, surely he would have told the police that if it were true?

Problem #2: Surely there were other better opportunities to burgle the home when both were out? Why the elaborate scheming?

Non-Issue: I will not point out calling the chess club as a problem necessarily. As neighbors they could well have known he was going to the club that night. It's almost a problem but plausible enough that I will omit it.

Upon seeing Julia go down the entry John assumes she's going on the trip with William and that the house is empty. At this point John allegedly goes into their home using his duplicate key and uses a jemmy to wrench open the cabinet door.

Problem #1: If John came in while Julia was out and wrenched off the cabinet door as his first action, she would have noticed this upon her return. True she may have assumed it'd broken on its own since it WAS previously broken and mended.

Problem #2: If John came in while Julia was out, she was only out for a very short while to walk William down the entry (unless she stayed out looking for Puss as claimed) and so the odds are she could have returned and caught John in the act of wrenching off the door and stealing from the cash box. You may say John heard her come back and quickly hid but I will later explain why this does not match the story*

Problem #3: If Julia had returned before John entered, John may not be able to enter the yard without scaling the wall, and he may not be able to get in the back door as it would probably be on the latch.

Problem #4: If Julia had returned before John entered, she would certainly have heard the back door being opened and the cabinet door being wrenched off?! Arguably she could have assumed it was from a neighbor's house, but this is very unlikely, and I am sure she would be alarmed and at least go to investigate in case something had fallen in the kitchen etc.

After wrenching off the door and stealing from the cash box, then replacing it, he goes into the parlor and is shocked to find Julia in there, flu-ridden and resting with Wallace's mackintosh as a blanket.

*Problem #1: If he heard her return and hid he would not be shocked to find her in there.

*Problem #2: If he heard Julia return and hid, why did he even enter the parlor instead of escaping unseen?

Problem #3: Why would a sick Julia cozy herself up in the coldest room in the house, instead of the warmer kitchen? If it was to lie down on the double seated couch why not lie down in bed?

Problem #4: Surely she has something more comfortable to use if she wanted a blanket? You know, like an ACTUAL blanket for example.

Admission: I will admit, IF Julia had stayed out searching for Puss, John may well have been in a different part of the home (e.g. the bedroom) and Julia may then have entered (assumed the cabinet door had just fallen off spontaneously considering it was broken already) and gone into the Parlor, and then indeed John may have gone in there and have been shocked to see her there.

Julia rises upon seeing Mr. Johnston, saying "Mr. Johnston?!" and Johnston hits her with the jemmy bar since she now knows he's the housebreaker.

Problem #1: The first blow was struck to the back left of Julia's head, strongly indicating she was hit in a surprise attack from behind. If the above is true the first blow would almost definitely have been to the front or side of head
I cannot actually think of a scenario where she would be hit from behind in this case unless he pretended William had just let him in and told her to light the fireplace? Or Julia tried to escape and he wacked her before she could escape? Or simply assumed William had indeed admitted him and went to go to the kitchen or whatever. Though forensics suggest she was at the back right side of the room when hit.

Problem #2: Neighbors did not hear her call out "Mr Johnston?!" in surprise. True she may have been weary if resting, unaware of any danger, and barely audible because of that. E.g. more of an inquisitive tone than a frightened one.

Problem #3: There is strong evidence indicating Julia had just lit the fireplace when struck.

Problem #4: There are no defensive wounds. Since it is likely a surprised Julia would be hit from the front or side, you would expect her to have attempted to defend herself by reflex.

Problem #5: The cleanliness of the scene is harder to reconcile if she was killed in an unplanned attack. He would have to clean super fast and get out before William returned.

Maybe Problem: There is some evidence Julia's time of death was later but of course this is HOTLY debated so I'll leave this as a "maybe" problem for you to decide for yourselves. As it is the crux of books by certain authors such as Gannon, Goodman and Antony, they have included many arguments to suggest she died later than stated.

Mr. Johnston then returns to his home, showers and changes his clothes, and waits for William to return. William goes to the front door but cannot get in. He goes to the back and again, cannot get in. He goes back to the front with no luck, then when he comes round to the back the Johnstons are there. Allegedly John has unlocked Wallace's back door with his key.

Problem #1: William already has a key to unlock the door, it's not necessary for John to do so unless he was still in the house as William apparently believed (that the killer was in the house when he returned).

Problem #2: Considering the above, how is John so squeaky clean if he had just ran out of their house after murdering Julia in a surprise attack? He would have about a minute or two at a STRETCH to escape the back yard, get back into his own, throw off bloodied clothing, knock for Florence to accompany him, etc.

So as you can see, the story Slemen presents is not very likely, and I think this biases people against considering Mr. Johnston. However, Stan the informant does know very obscure verified facts about the case, and it was confirmed John was indeed at that nursing/retirement home or whatever and that Stan was a resident there.

Within this "confession" you may find small grains of truths that were then elaborated into a story, either pieced together from tidbits of information like a puzzle by Stan, or Slemen using Stan's words and fictionalizing events to piece together the entire tale - similar to Antony's writing style which fictionalizes events like Qualtrough's "gaudy M ring".

For example... Perhaps John did admit he was the housebreaker, perhaps John did admit Florence had Puss, perhaps John did watch Julia go down the entry with William... He may have said these things all at once or even let little things slip here and there during his time as friends with Stan.

The same can be said of Parkes. Perhaps a small grain of truth was elaborated into a lie. For example, maybe Parry did act very peculiar at the garage, maybe Parry did have a glove in the car... But perhaps him saying "that would hang me!" and randomly admitting where he disposed of the murder weapon is a fabrication.

What we know about the Johnstons is that they have lied, retracted/altered statements, and acted suspiciously - along with them having a key that would open William's door, knowing the layout of the home (due to housesitting previously), their fingerprints and William's being the only identifiable prints at the scene, moving the next day, randomly visiting relatives late at night when said relative was not expecting them and may very well have been getting ready to go to bed,the perfect timing of their meeting with William, and John having the BEST opportunity out of ANYONE to get in and out unseen... Also consider that William did not call out the Johnstons on lies (like saying they'd only ever been in the parlor) or become suspicious when John said he didn't know Julia's name, and the fact that he didn't mention the Johnstons as possible people Julia would admit into the home. If William were truly innocent, based on the fact they magically appeared there then the door opened, I'm certain he might think it odd unless he was incredibly stupid.

In my honest opinion and that of my friend's. I have high certainty that Gordon Parry called that night taking all the facts into consideration, and I have high certainty that the intent was murder (not burglary) as well as the crime being premeditated. My suspicion for the motive is an affair.

So considering that, I believe the most credible theories are: The one I have presented (Wallace tricking Parry into calling, and blackmailing John into murder), Gannon's theory (though I prefer the gay twist on it), or William killing Julia himself after tricking Gordon into making a call.

I think it's more likely William had someone else murder Julia otherwise his excessive alibi-mongering was unnecessary as he already had his alibi. He'd been on the journey based on a call that he thought would come at a time that completely exonerated him from making it himself. He had fixed times with the residents of 25 Menlove Gardens West, spoken to tram conductors etc. Perhaps his alibi-mongering was excessive because Mr. Crewe was not home, meaning he had to wander around the streets for longer than expected on his snipe hunt in order for 8 PM to pass.

P.S. Antony/Rod's theory is not new. It was presented as a possibility by Goodman.

[WallaceWackedHer]

My friend told me about the caffay thing. He is aware of many small details which is very helpful. I did not know William had an accent. There are many tiny obscure facts in this case.

By the way your statements from Wallace are after his initial claim and this is very important to note. On the murder night he told the officer Julia had followed him down the entry. I should have been more specific in my wording. That officer testified in court that William had told him this, that he was certain of it because it immediately gave him the idea someone could have slipped in.

Why did William so quickly retract this claim that helps his defence enormously?

I do not know which was closer but if John is sure enough that Julia is dead and cannot possibly be saved one would think he'd have gone to the police. For example, if Julia was decapitated in there do you think it would be expected he'd go for a doctor or straight for the police?

As for the jacket I do not know that it was staged well but according to Mrs. Johnston as soon as she noticed it she immediately thought Julia had worn it round her shoulders to protect from the cold - so if they're in on it then we have to assume then, that this was the impression it was meant to give. We have never seen exactly the original positioning of the jacket since it was moved - but according to Mrs. Johnston it was apparent right away she probably had worn it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think William relied on Parry's silence so much as you do. Just because Parry has an alibi for the murder it doesn't mean he didn't have an accomplice of his own to do the deed while giving himself an alibi. Parry left the Pru of his own accord BUT was caught insurance scamming and was forced to pay back the money.
I think that it was always going to be certain that the police would connect the call to the murder. This would put pressure on Parry with the police showing interest in him. He might have cracked and admitted to the call but not the murder. What if he began to think - what if my voice is recognised? He had an alibi for the murder of course. Why would Wallace risk this?
I don't think Gordon was mentioned on the off chance, William went into extreme detail on Parry, quite a bit on Marsden (who connects to the alias) and then just random names without detail. I think he had tried to frame Gordon for the crime. Again Parry doesn't have to be the murderer, he could just as easily have an accomplice who isn't William. If anyone was going down in that scenario odds are very high it would be Parry. Parry's word would hold little water against William's considering Parry's reputation as a crook. Also remember in this scenario Wallace is sure the time of the call and time of death will exonerate him entirely.
Another question to ask is - if Parry was involved with Wallace, why after Wallace was released, did he continue to insist on Parry’s guilt. Publicly? Isn’t this like poking a sleeping lion?
By the way it is known Parry pronounced it as caffay, William said caffe. Surprising but true. It is why Rod harped on about it so much.
I’d need to see the back up on that one WWH. I’m not saying that I can’t be wrong but I’m not aware of any proof of how Wallace or Parry definitely pronounced the word. For me caffay is way more likely for Wallace. Another important point is that the operators said that it was a normal voice, ie a local voice. Wallace had a Cumbrian accent. Difficult to entirely disguise.
I am incorrect about the door. He stated he always returned by the front door at night. No mention of always leaving by it. My mistake.
No problem.
Johnston needn't climb the wall, the yard door is open because I suggest - as per William's first statement, Julia followed him down the entry. This would allow someone to slip in. This is immensely helpful for William's defence yet he shut it down himself and changed his mind claiming Julia followed him down the yard and bolted the gate instead. I suggest he did this because that's exactly what happened (someone slipped in) and he didn't want the police to investigate that too hard. Because Julia and William are both out of the home and yard this ensures the latch cannot possibly be on the back door, nor the bolt on the yard gate, making entry most definitely possible. We know Johnston's key fit that lock BUT William ALSO had a spare set of keys he could have left lying near the door in a pre-planned location or even handed to the killer. Something to keep in mind.
In Wallace’s first statement 20/01/31 he only says - I left the house at 6.45 pm leaving by the back door.
in his second statement 22/01/31 he says - When I left the house at 6.45 pm on Tuesday night last, my wife came down the backyard with me as far as the yard door, she closed the yard door.
Later in the statement he adds - When I left my house at 6.45 pm , my wife was sitting in the kitchen, that is when I had got my hat and coat on ready to go, and as I have said, she came down the yard with me.
Julia only went as far as the gate. She never left the yard.

The story was meant to be that Julia had been wearing the jacket round her shoulders as per Mrs. Johnston's alleged immediate theory. Precaution was taken. The mack was probably worn by the culprit (though not for certain) and then placed under her to give the impression she had worn it round her shoulders.
The problem is that when you i about it I can come up with no scenario which has Julia, with a coat around her shoulda, falling and the coat getting bunched up underneath her. It doesn’t fit.
We do not know if blood was left on gas jets etc. If the Johnstons are working with William they have time for a cleanup operation. However it is likely gloves would have been used one would think.
There was no blood on any of the gas jets but you’re right, if the Johnston’s were involved they could have cleaned up.
And no not everyone becomes hysterical but the behavior is odd. There are three people, including a woman. ALL remain stoic as we see by their silence. They could have ran out to alert neighbors, anything. Not one of them raised their voice. They maintain silence so they have time to stage a robbery/make sure everything is in order and clean etc. before alerting anyone that there's trouble.
I agree that some of the behaviour appears strange but it’s not enough to convince me of guilt at this point.
You say nothing could be done for Julia. And it's true and obvious. But okay if that's the case explain why Johnston went for a doctor first? I’d suggest that it was just the first thing that would have been done in the circumstances. Was the doctor closer than the police station? I can’t recall.
It implies he felt she could be saved if he's truly innocent. So why is he dawdling investigating burglaries? Even if nothing can be done for her - going immediately for the emergency services is unarguably the natural response.
Some might say that Wallace was going through the motions. Just wanting to do something.
And yes the earlier burglaries took next to nothing. The similarity was so uncanny including replacement of the container of valuables that police initially suspected the Anfield housebreaker before zoning in on William. At which point William randomly goes to the police with "important information" about Parry and Marsden.

The problem is that much of the strange or suspicious behaviour is also relevant for Wallace alone as the murder.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I don't think William relied on Parry's silence so much as you do. Just because Parry has an alibi for the murder it doesn't mean he didn't have an accomplice of his own to do the deed while giving himself an alibi. Parry left the Pru of his own accord BUT was caught insurance scamming and was forced to pay back the money.

I don't think Gordon was mentioned on the off chance, William went into extreme detail on Parry, quite a bit on Marsden (who connects to the alias) and then just random names without detail. I think he had tried to frame Gordon for the crime. Again Parry doesn't have to be the murderer, he could just as easily have an accomplice who isn't William. If anyone was going down in that scenario odds are very high it would be Parry. Parry's word would hold little water against William's considering Parry's reputation as a crook. Also remember in this scenario Wallace is sure the time of the call and time of death will exonerate him entirely. He also has no known motive to kill his wife (but I believe it was an affair), as far as the Johnstons are concerned they never once in a decade heard the Wallaces argue, they lived in marital bliss it would seem.

By the way it is known Parry pronounced it as caffay, William said caffe. Surprising but true. It is why Rod harped on about it so much.

I am incorrect about the door. He stated he always returned by the front door at night. No mention of always leaving by it. My mistake.

Johnston needn't climb the wall, the yard door is open because I suggest - as per William's first statement, Julia followed him down the entry. This would allow someone to slip in. This is immensely helpful for William's defence yet he shut it down himself and changed his mind claiming Julia followed him down the yard and bolted the gate instead. I suggest he did this because that's exactly what happened (someone slipped in) and he didn't want the police to investigate that too hard. Because Julia and William are both out of the home and yard this ensures the latch cannot possibly be on the back door, nor the bolt on the yard gate, making entry most definitely possible. We know Johnston's key fit that lock BUT William ALSO had a spare set of keys he could have left lying near the door in a pre-planned location or even handed to the killer. Something to keep in mind.

The story was meant to be that Julia had been wearing the jacket round her shoulders as per Mrs. Johnston's alleged immediate theory. Precaution was taken. The mack was probably worn by the culprit (though not for certain) and then placed under her to give the impression she had worn it round her shoulders.

We do not know if blood was left on gas jets etc. If the Johnstons are working with William they have time for a cleanup operation. However it is likely gloves would have been used one would think.

And no not everyone becomes hysterical but the behavior is odd. There are three people, including a woman. ALL remain stoic as we see by their silence. They could have ran out to alert neighbors, anything. Not one of them raised their voice. They maintain silence so they have time to stage a robbery/make sure everything is in order and clean etc. before alerting anyone that there's trouble.

You say nothing could be done for Julia. And it's true and obvious. But okay if that's the case explain why Johnston went for a doctor first? It implies he felt she could be saved if he's truly innocent. So why is he dawdling investigating burglaries? Even if nothing can be done for her - going immediately for the emergency services or alerting neighbors/their own relatives to do so is unarguably the natural response.

And yes the earlier burglaries took next to nothing. The similarity was so uncanny including replacement of the container of valuables that police initially suspected the Anfield housebreaker before zoning in on William. At which point William randomly goes to the police with "important information" about Parry and Marsden.

[Herlock Sholmes]

F it, dead thread but here's my solution:

The Night of the Call:

William gets Gordon to make a call - likely on a false pretext, possibly even by payment (in which case Gordon might not even request to know the reason or ar least be less inquisitive).

William takes a peculiar route on the night of the chess club (his usual route being the tram he says he took on the murder night), probably to see if Parry has turned up as planned or to brief him very quickly before going left. Parry goes right to the box. He calls too early - this is why I think William presses Beattie for accuracy on the call timing, he thinks it came later at a time that exonerates him, say half past the hour. He absolutely refused to give his reasoning for his actions with Beattie, and him asking to "get it nearer than that" implies he knows when the call should have been made. After all - if he is truly unaware why would he doubt Beattie's time estimate? It shows advanced knowledge. Whilst I don’t go for Parry being involved WWH this is a well made point. It’s always been a question of why Wallace wanted a more accurate time and this gives a plausible possible explanation. Like the crossing out of WEST when taking down the address (possibly the most condemning piece of evidence - as it again strongly suggests advanced knowledge. If he truly did not know the Gardens he would have written down the address without hesitation - alternatively he the caller was meant to say West).

The Qualtrough moniker links to Parry's friend Marsden. Both arguably have a grudge against the Pru and both would allegedly be admitted by Julia. I need to check details as I have no books where I am at the moment but I’m pretty sure that Parry left the Pru of his own accord. I don’t think that this provides evidence of a grudge. William gave great detail on these two. This is because he was trying to frame somebody else for the murder... A mysterious stranger - or if it came to it - Gordon... Otherwise he could have killed her on Monday just before chess, gone out, came back at past 10 and the situation would be near identical aside from the red herring suspect who went by Qualtrough. So the entire point of the call is to frame a mystery caller and divert attention from himself. It doesn’t have to be a specific person. I tend think that Wallace just named Parry and Marsden on the off-chance. If the murder had occurred when Wallace was at chess the police might have been a bit suspicious because Wallace wasn’t a regular attender. The phone call simply introduces the idea of a guilty person deliberately getting William out of the house.

If Parry ever said what had happened Wallace's word would have been far stronger due to Parry's reputation as a crook. This is a part that I just can’t get past. Wallace risks the gallows on the strength of his reputation? Parry has an alibi for the murder. I can see no possibility of the police believing that the call and the murder were unconnected. I think that it would have been near suicidal stupidity for Wallace to have relied on Parry’s silence.

Also note during the call Parry used the term cafè whereas William said cafe, and he made mention of a 21st birthday when asked a question he was not expecting. The caller pronounces it caffay which is the posher more sophisticated pronunciation as opposed to caff or caffee as a local,would more likely have said. This points to the older, more sophisticated (even pretentious) Wallace. The operators also say that it was the voice of an older man. Cafe and voice point to William.


The Murder of Julia:

Wallace is aware that Mr. Johnston has committed the burglaries on the street. He may have known this because one of the homes was robbed while the Johnstons were housesitting (not hard to put 2 and 2 together) and also they had housesat for the Wallaces. If William had found anything had been taken from his own home he may certainly have outed Johnston. They are also neighbors - if John can hear Amy through the walls the reverse is true, and of course Florence was friends with Julia so there are many ways he could have figured this out.

Johnston is old and should he be sentenced would likely die in prison. He is also (almost) the sole breadwinner of the large household.
Too old for housebreaking?
Wallace uses blackmail to convince John to murder Julia.

Alan Close is a red herring. He is not part of the plan... But note, neighbors hear with clarity from the kitchen the Wallace's door open and close. This is important because nobody reported hearing any knocks or door openings after this time. Even a familiar face to Julia would have had some doorstep chatter. A killer entering by the front door is way too risky in any scenario. The back entry is safe. Especially for a neighbor. I agree that it would have been unlikely for any killer to have had any kind of conversation with Julia at the front door. What we have to remember though about what was heard and seen was that the testimony of the Johnston’s combined with that of the Holme’s which show that it was far likelier that Julia closed the door on Alan Close before 6.40.

At around 6.45, William takes Julia out and she follows him down the entry as per his first statement. It's important he goes out the back (even though he admitted he always went out the front door during the night - which it was - so taking the back door was unnatural) so he can be sure the yard door is unbolted... Although we only have William's word that Julia always bolted the door. Are you sure about this WWH? I know that William said that he always returned by the back door at night. I’m unaware of him mentioning anything about always leaving by the front door?

Ask yourself: Julia following William down the entry is very good for his defence. It introduces the possibility of an intruder slipping in at this time (which was the officer's first thought when told this). So why did he take this back and change his statement UNLESS it's because that's exactly what happened and he wanted to shut off police from investigating that possibility lest it lead them to the truth?
If someone had entered whilst Julia was at the gate with William then fingers would only point at the Johnston’s or the Holme’s their immediate neighbours. What if a neighbour had looked out of their window and seen Johnston climbing over the wall?
So Julia follows William down the entry and John slips into their yard and unlocks their back door with his key, locking it behind him (the latch cannot be on as both Wallaces are out). He then hides in the home. Because I now know Julia was hit from the WINDOW side of the room which I didn't know before, I suggest he hid behind the curtains, which would certainly have been shut at this time.
Why would Julia have bolted the back door just while she was planning to be at the back gate for a minute or two?
William has told Julia to arrange the parlor for his return and specifies a time. I suggest 8 PM as the time. I say this because William checks his watch with the officer and says "it is not quite 8 yet" as though that particular time is of importance to him.

If Julia is already dead he doesn't need to do this, he already has an alibi from the residents of Menlove Gardens West and various tram conductors, all of whom would have fixed a time. But he wants to stay out beyond 8 which is when Julia is to be killed. I suggest William wanted to visit Crewe until past this time before heading home.

As pointed out by Gannon if Julia was killed before William left, the kitchen fireplace should have been out. Instead it is claimed it was still burning slightly. Also pointed out by Gannon two important factors: Julia's stomach contents from her meal with William were too digested for her to have been killed when claimed. MacFall also initially estimated her time of death as between 7.30 and 8.30 PM. Which fits perfectly with what I propose was Julia's time of death: 8 PM.
TOD estimations are notoriously shaky.
So at this time, around 8, she goes into the parlor to set it up for William's return and puts on the gas light. When she then strikes a match and lights the fireplace John emerges from his hiding place and hits her from the back left side as she is rising.

This force from the left causes her to fall into the fireplace skirt first. We see this because the burn marks on her skirt are horizontal - consistent with the grid of a fireplace.

Panicked John grabs her by the hair and pulls her out of the fire. He may have thrown the mackintosh over her to put out the flames (there is an alternate theory to this I will explain later). John then bundles the mackintosh under her body to give the impression she was wearing it (as was planned) If she was wearing it how could it end up bunched beneath her body? Even if she was carrying it it couldn’t have ended up where it did.and leaves out the back door and back into his own yard. He showers and changes his clothes If he took no precaution then it’s overwhelmingly likely that he’d have been heavily bloodstained and yet he leaves no trace on the gas jets, the door handles the doors or the carpets or anywhere outside of the Parlour. Or on the gate as he returned home. (for his apparent planned visit to a relative late at night who was not expecting their arrival). Maybe something the Johnston’s wanted to discus but neither having a phone. A relative they were apparently going to move in with the following day with - and on top of that, they bring no luggage to lighten the next day's load. Maybe they had a car or they’d hired or borrowed a van? Mrs. Johnston also suggested it immediately occured to her that Julia may have been wearing it around her shoulders to protect from the cold.

The Johnstons meet William at 8.40 in the entry. This time may have been a planned meeting time (hence John urging Florence to hurry) - or the knock on the back door may have been the signal. Note that Florence specified these knocks were GENTLE. Nobody else reported hearing knocks yet could so easily hear them when milk boys etc. arrived. If he was play acting why did he not knock louder to make it more likely neighbors would hear?
Good point.
Take note: if the Johnstons were in on this plan this may all have been fabricated, and everything following may be fabricated until the arrival of the police. As far as I know nobody corroborated William had knocked on any door upon arriving home.

William needs the Johnstons to enter to rule out the possibility he had killed Julia on his return, not just to corroborate him finding the body, the Johnstons need to enter to explain away their fingerprints. Otherwise he could simply have entered his house and ran out to alert neighbors as to the scene of the crime. But he couldn't do this.

All three initially claimed William had told them to wait outside. ALL three then retracted this statement and claimed it was John who told William to go in alone while they wait outside.

Again take careful notice: The discovery of the body is silent. Mrs. Johnston does not scream at the very gruesome sight of her friend's brains and blood all over the floor. William does not shout or cry out. John does not raise his voice. This is all done on purpose because they do not want other neighbors alerted to trouble yet. Not everyone becomes hysterical in those circumstances.

In other words, until John goes to the police nobody is aware anything is awry and that's how they want it. The burglary may even have been staged at THIS point (and/or a cleanup operation), as instead of going for the police, the Johnstons decide to investigate the burglary and send William upstairs (again) before he finally leaves for the police. By the way William claims he counted the missing money after John left. John claimed he checked how much was missing in front of him. Julia was dead. Nothing could have been done for her.

Remember there is an entire street of people, and two Johnstons, one could have immediately gone for the police while the other stayed, or they could have told their relatives or other neighbors to rush for the emergency services while they wait with William. Investigating burglaries while a woman lie dead (who you possibly think can be saved hence going for a doctor first) is bizarre and no satisfactory explanation can be given for this. I think everyone will admit all of this is very suspicious. Strange but not necessarily suspicious.

I believe at this point, after John has gone for the police, William notices HIS mackintosh is under Julia's body. Alarmed (since John was meant to wear one of Julia's jackets?) there is some possibility last minute incineration was attempted but had to be aborted - they are on limited time now because John has gone for the police who could arrive any minute. The burning could also have created a noticeable smell. It would have been a massive risk to try and burn something at this stage.

It's plausible they did not even touch the jacket since they would then get blood upon themselves. Both William and Florence stated he said "her mackintosh; and my mackintosh". This was the story they were going with. Though Florence gets mixed up at times about who said what or what she said, and they all change statements or.place events in different orders.

Mrs. Johnston starts a fire. I would think this was done before Mr. Johnston went for the police but I have nothing to back that up. At this stage some small pieces of evidence like gloves etc. may have been incinerated entirely. It might not be the case but we must consider this possibility.

Mrs. Johnston claimed she had the theory Mrs. Johnston had placed the mackintosh around herself due to the cold. She had also pointed out a matchbox, she said she asked if it was Julia's, then changed it to say she asked if it was William's. In both iterations he responds in the affirmative. She herself said "what have they used", again a phrase wrongfully pinned on William who, in court, did not point out he didn't say that but went along with it as though he really had. It also important to remember that, after he’d been released, it was William himself that suggested that the killer might have used the mackintosh as a shield. A bit of gloating perhaps?

The police arrive and Puss returns. Interestingly Mrs. Johnston seems very agitated at the idea of Puss seeing Julia's body, which raises the odds the cat was removed in advance for altruistic reasons. Or simply because a distressed cat may make noise audible to neighbors. It is certainly peculiar a cat should go tomcatting in such harsh weather without returning home. This is something more common in the summer times.

As for the crime scene itself, remember it is tampered with in the photographs. The mackintosh and furniture are not in their original positions. John points out he did not see a mackintosh was there so I do believe the discovery was made after he'd gone for the police. Of course, we know if he put it there he knew full well it was there, but he has to stick to the story which is that William first pointed it out when John had left... Florence also apparently stooped down from the side where Julia's blood had spread but got none upon her. John said he also stooped down but it's claimed he stayed in the doorway. The mackintosh had been pulled out so that it could be identified and the furniture was moved by the police or the photographer for obvious reasons.

Before going the police or alerting anyone (as he should have done instantly) he sends William upstairs again to see if anything more is stolen. But they already saw William check all the rooms upstairs from outside. So this seems peculiar.

The police arrive. Somehow, according to Florence, Julia's body has gone from warm to cold to the touch. Florence also states William cried in front of her. If he was guilty and trying to seem emotional, why remain so collected in front of everyone else?

Because the crime scene is basically a carbon copy of an earlier burglary that took place in december (items taken and the container replaced, bedroom in random disarray), the police initially suspected it was the Anfield housebreaker, but this theory was quickly scrapped, and the police became entirely biased against William. If you take any number of burglaries there are bound to be similarities in some.

And here's what William WANTED the police to think:

A mystery caller linked to the Anfield housebreaker lures William away from the home and gains entry to the home, possibly by use of the Qualtrough alias. I say housebreaker because the burglary is staged identically to earlier housebreaker scenes on the street. Did the earlier housebreaking take next to nothing? He wants police to believe the killer was STILL IN HIS HOUSE when he returned home and that he had slipped out the back when William went to the front door.

If this fell through and he fell under suspicion he would throw Parry under the bus who has very poor credibility and can be linked to the crime in many ways. He knows William goes to chess, his friend has a client with a near identical alias, it is already known he is a crook, and he has no alibi for the call because he was the one who made it. He would also be admitted by Julia (along with Marsden apparently) and knew where the cash box was, and William assumes the time of death and time of the call will exonerate him completely. I still don’t think for a minute that William would have trusted Parry. Not with the gallows looming.

---

Could they have done more? Yes - possibly. Both William and the Johnstons were careful to maintain plausible denianility. In other words if something was proven false they can explain it away. Like William wanted police to believe the burglar was still in the home yet claimed to hear nothing inside the house when he got back. Johnstons heard a thud at 8.20 yet they said it might have been Arthur's boots.

Everything they have said, if debunked, does not condemn them.

But I think they felt they were safe enough with the actions they took. Every new lie is something new to remember and something new which can be questioned and investigated.

I am relatively sure Gordon placed the call, and I have difficulty exonerating the Johnstons who displayed suspicious behavior and retracted/altered statements, alterations in the chronology of events, and even outright lies (e.g. that they had only ever been in the parlor).

---

Checkmate William? What say you...

I see the attraction of William not working alone. It allows possible solutions for some of the difficult points. It’s a well though scenario WWH and I could be completely wrong and you could be correct. The Johnston’s just don’t ring true to me. We have to assume that Johnston was the housebreaker and assume that Wallace found out. Then we have to assume that Wallace had enough evidence to blackmail Johnston and that Johnston was the type that would have been capable of brutally murdering an old lady. We also have to assume that Wallace had such a level of confidence that Parry wouldn’t blab to the police and get him hanged. As it stands I still think it likeliest that William acted alone. An accomplice would explain much but if he had one I don’t think that it was Parry or the Johnston’s.

[WallaceWackedHer]

F it, dead thread but here's my solution:

The Night of the Call:

William gets Gordon to make a call - likely on a false pretext, possibly even by payment (in which case Gordon might not even request to know the reason or ar least be less inquisitive).

William takes a peculiar route on the night of the chess club (his usual route being the tram he says he took on the murder night), probably to see if Parry has turned up as planned or to brief him very quickly before going left. Parry goes right to the box. He calls too early - this is why I think William presses Beattie for accuracy on the call timing, he thinks it came later at a time that exonerates him, say half past the hour. He absolutely refused to give his reasoning for his actions with Beattie, and him asking to "get it nearer than that" implies he knows when the call should have been made. After all - if he is truly unaware why would he doubt Beattie's time estimate? It shows advanced knowledge. Like the crossing out of WEST when taking down the address (possibly the most condemning piece of evidence - as it again strongly suggests advanced knowledge. If he truly did not know the Gardens he would have written down the address without hesitation - alternatively he the caller was meant to say West).

The Qualtrough moniker links to Parry's friend Marsden. Both arguably have a grudge against the Pru and both would allegedly be admitted by Julia. William gave great detail on these two. This is because he was trying to frame somebody else for the murder... A mysterious stranger - or if it came to it - Gordon... Otherwise he could have killed her on Monday just before chess, gone out, came back at past 10 and the situation would be near identical aside from the red herring suspect who went by Qualtrough. So the entire point of the call is to frame a mystery caller and divert attention from himself.

If Parry ever said what had happened Wallace's word would have been far stronger due to Parry's reputation as a crook.

Also note during the call Parry used the term cafè whereas William said cafe, and he made mention of a 21st birthday when asked a question he was not expecting.

The Murder of Julia:

Wallace is aware that Mr. Johnston has committed the burglaries on the street. He may have known this because one of the homes was robbed while the Johnstons were housesitting (not hard to put 2 and 2 together) and also they had housesat for the Wallaces. If William had found anything had been taken from his own home he may certainly have outed Johnston. They are also neighbors - if John can hear Amy through the walls the reverse is true, and of course Florence was friends with Julia so there are many ways he could have figured this out.

Johnston is old and should he be sentenced would likely die in prison. He is also (almost) the sole breadwinner of the large household.

Wallace uses blackmail to convince John to murder Julia.

Alan Close is a red herring. He is not part of the plan... But note, neighbors hear with clarity from the kitchen the Wallace's door open and close. This is important because nobody reported hearing any knocks or door openings after this time. Even a familiar face to Julia would have had some doorstep chatter. A killer entering by the front door is way too risky in any scenario. The back entry is safe. Especially for a neighbor.

At around 6.45, William takes Julia out and she follows him down the entry as per his first statement. It's important he goes out the back (even though he admitted he always went out the front door during the night - which it was - so taking the back door was unnatural) so he can be sure the yard door is unbolted... Although we only have William's word that Julia always bolted the door.

Ask yourself: Julia following William down the entry is very good for his defence. It introduces the possibility of an intruder slipping in at this time (which was the officer's first thought when told this). So why did he take this back and change his statement UNLESS it's because that's exactly what happened and he wanted to shut off police from investigating that possibility lest it lead them to the truth?

So Julia follows William down the entry and John slips into their yard and unlocks their back door with his key, locking it behind him (the latch cannot be on as both Wallaces are out). He then hides in the home. Because I now know Julia was hit from the WINDOW side of the room which I didn't know before, I suggest he hid behind the curtains, which would certainly have been shut at this time.

William has told Julia to arrange the parlor for his return and specifies a time. I suggest 8 PM as the time. I say this because William checks his watch with the officer and says "it is not quite 8 yet" as though that particular time is of importance to him.

If Julia is already dead he doesn't need to do this, he already has an alibi from the residents of Menlove Gardens West and various tram conductors, all of whom would have fixed a time. But he wants to stay out beyond 8 which is when Julia is to be killed. I suggest William wanted to visit Crewe until past this time before heading home.

As pointed out by Gannon if Julia was killed before William left, the kitchen fireplace should have been out. Instead it is claimed it was still burning slightly. Also pointed out by Gannon two important factors: Julia's stomach contents from her meal with William were too digested for her to have been killed when claimed. MacFall also initially estimated her time of death as between 7.30 and 8.30 PM. Which fits perfectly with what I propose was Julia's time of death: 8 PM.

So at this time, around 8, she goes into the parlor to set it up for William's return and puts on the gas light. When she then strikes a match and lights the fireplace John emerges from his hiding place and hits her from the back left side as she is rising.

This force from the left causes her to fall into the fireplace skirt first. We see this because the burn marks on her skirt are horizontal - consistent with the grid of a fireplace.

Panicked John grabs her by the hair and pulls her out of the fire. He may have thrown the mackintosh over her to put out the flames (there is an alternate theory to this I will explain later). John then bundles the mackintosh under her body to give the impression she was wearing it (as was planned) and leaves out the back door and back into his own yard. He showers and changes his clothes (for his apparent planned visit to a relative late at night who was not expecting their arrival). A relative they were apparently going to move in with the following day with - and on top of that, they bring no luggage to lighten the next day's load. Mrs. Johnston also suggested it immediately occured to her that Julia may have been wearing it around her shoulders to protect from the cold.

The Johnstons meet William at 8.40 in the entry. This time may have been a planned meeting time (hence John urging Florence to hurry) - or the knock on the back door may have been the signal. Note that Florence specified these knocks were GENTLE. Nobody else reported hearing knocks yet could so easily hear them when milk boys etc. arrived. If he was play acting why did he not knock louder to make it more likely neighbors would hear?

Take note: if the Johnstons were in on this plan this may all have been fabricated, and everything following may be fabricated until the arrival of the police. As far as I know nobody corroborated William had knocked on any door upon arriving home.

William needs the Johnstons to enter to rule out the possibility he had killed Julia on his return, not just to corroborate him finding the body, the Johnstons need to enter to explain away their fingerprints. Otherwise he could simply have entered his house and ran out to alert neighbors as to the scene of the crime. But he couldn't do this.

All three initially claimed William had told them to wait outside. ALL three then retracted this statement and claimed it was John who told William to go in alone while they wait outside.

Again take careful notice: The discovery of the body is silent. Mrs. Johnston does not scream at the very gruesome sight of her friend's brains and blood all over the floor. William does not shout or cry out. John does not raise his voice. This is all done on purpose because they do not want other neighbors alerted to trouble yet.

In other words, until John goes to the police nobody is aware anything is awry and that's how they want it. The burglary may even have been staged at THIS point (and/or a cleanup operation), as instead of going for the police, the Johnstons decide to investigate the burglary and send William upstairs (again) before he finally leaves for the police. By the way William claims he counted the missing money after John left. John claimed he checked how much was missing in front of him.

Remember there is an entire street of people, and two Johnstons, one could have immediately gone for the police while the other stayed, or they could have told their relatives or other neighbors to rush for the emergency services while they wait with William. Investigating burglaries while a woman lie dead (who you possibly think can be saved hence going for a doctor first) is bizarre and no satisfactory explanation can be given for this. I think everyone will admit all of this is very suspicious.

I believe at this point, after John has gone for the police, William notices HIS mackintosh is under Julia's body. Alarmed (since John was meant to wear one of Julia's jackets?) there is some possibility last minute incineration was attempted but had to be aborted - they are on limited time now because John has gone for the police who could arrive any minute. The burning could also have created a noticeable smell.

It's plausible they did not even touch the jacket since they would then get blood upon themselves. Both William and Florence stated he said "her mackintosh; and my mackintosh". This was the story they were going with. Though Florence gets mixed up at times about who said what or what she said, and they all change statements or.place events in different orders.

Mrs. Johnston starts a fire. I would think this was done before Mr. Johnston went for the police but I have nothing to back that up. At this stage some small pieces of evidence like gloves etc. may have been incinerated entirely. It might not be the case but we must consider this possibility.

Mrs. Johnston claimed she had the theory Mrs. Johnston had placed the mackintosh around herself due to the cold. She had also pointed out a matchbox, she said she asked if it was Julia's, then changed it to say she asked if it was William's. In both iterations he responds in the affirmative. She herself said "what have they used", again a phrase wrongfully pinned on William who, in court, did not point out he didn't say that but went along with it as though he really had.

The police arrive and Puss returns. Interestingly Mrs. Johnston seems very agitated at the idea of Puss seeing Julia's body, which raises the odds the cat was removed in advance for altruistic reasons. Or simply because a distressed cat may make noise audible to neighbors. It is certainly peculiar a cat should go tomcatting in such harsh weather without returning home. This is something more common in the summer times.

As for the crime scene itself, remember it is tampered with in the photographs. The mackintosh and furniture are not in their original positions. John points out he did not see a mackintosh was there so I do believe the discovery was made after he'd gone for the police. Of course, we know if he put it there he knew full well it was there, but he has to stick to the story which is that William first pointed it out when John had left... Florence also apparently stooped down from the side where Julia's blood had spread but got none upon her. John said he also stooped down but it's claimed he stayed in the doorway.

Before going the police or alerting anyone (as he should have done instantly) he sends William upstairs again to see if anything more is stolen. But they already saw William check all the rooms upstairs from outside. So this seems peculiar.

The police arrive. Somehow, according to Florence, Julia's body has gone from warm to cold to the touch. Florence also states William cried in front of her. If he was guilty and trying to seem emotional, why remain so collected in front of everyone else?

Because the crime scene is basically a carbon copy of an earlier burglary that took place in december (items taken and the container replaced, bedroom in random disarray), the police initially suspected it was the Anfield housebreaker, but this theory was quickly scrapped, and the police became entirely biased against William.

And here's what William WANTED the police to think:

A mystery caller linked to the Anfield housebreaker lures William away from the home and gains entry to the home, possibly by use of the Qualtrough alias. I say housebreaker because the burglary is staged identically to earlier housebreaker scenes on the street. He wants police to believe the killer was STILL IN HIS HOUSE when he returned home and that he had slipped out the back when William went to the front door.

If this fell through and he fell under suspicion he would throw Parry under the bus who has very poor credibility and can be linked to the crime in many ways. He knows William goes to chess, his friend has a client with a near identical alias, it is already known he is a crook, and he has no alibi for the call because he was the one who made it. He would also be admitted by Julia (along with Marsden apparently) and knew where the cash box was, and William assumes the time of death and time of the call will exonerate him completely.

---

Could they have done more? Yes - possibly. Both William and the Johnstons were careful to maintain plausible denianility. In other words if something was proven false they can explain it away. Like William wanted police to believe the burglar was still in the home yet claimed to hear nothing inside the house when he got back. Johnstons heard a thud at 8.20 yet they said it might have been Arthur's boots.

Everything they have said, if debunked, does not condemn them.

But I think they felt they were safe enough with the actions they took. Every new lie is something new to remember and something new which can be questioned and investigated.

I am relatively sure Gordon placed the call, and I have difficulty exonerating the Johnstons who displayed suspicious behavior and retracted/altered statements, alterations in the chronology of events, and even outright lies (e.g. that they had only ever been in the parlor).

---

Checkmate William? What say you...

[WallaceWackedHer]

I did some digging and by forensic reports it seems evident that Julia's skirt WAS burned by the fireplace in the parlor. This is proven because the burns are in a horizontal pattern, which is consistent with the grid of the fireplace (they had a Sunbeam brand fireplace by the way).

I also saw something I didn't realize before. Apparently Julia was on the RIGHT side of the room (by the window) when struck down.

So here is how she was killed and how the skirt came to be burnt:

Julia bends down to light the fireplace, she does this successfully. As she begins to rise, she is hit from the left side (the point of impact is behind her left ear). This force causes her body to fall left into the fireplace at which point her skirt is burned. The attacker pulls Julia out from the fire, probably by her hair according to forensics. The fact she fell sideways is corroborated by the evidence that the part of the skirt which was burned was typically worn on the side of the woman. For some reason it had been twisted into a different position, which I don't understand.

So the attacker with Julia alight, may then have panicked and thrown the mackintosh he was wearing onto her to put out flames... However, what confuses me is that the mackintosh was burnt more than the skirt? How could this be? Was a purposeful incineration attempted and aborted? Or was it in fact true that Julia HAD worn it around her shoulders and that the mackintosh, with her body, fell into the flames? Or is a mackintosh simply far more flammable than a skirt? Was the skirt put out first and the mackintosh thrown aside and stomped out (which would take a bit longer).

Mrs. Johnston is the one who actually suggested that theory that she had been wearing it around her shoulders due to the cold to answer the door to someone. However, because it seems neighbors could easily hear doors opening and closing (based on statements of hearing doors close on milk boys etc.) I rather suspect if anyone else had entered it would have been through the back... Apparently the Johnstons left their yard door unbolted when they went out. Is it true that Julia always bolted it behind him too? Did he really always go out the back during daylight hours and by the front door at night?

Keep in mind - the time he left the house was near 7 P.M., which is night, and would have been dark out. So by his own words shouldn't he have used the front door? Instead he chooses the back. I think there's some importance to that... He says she followed him down the entry. He retracted this. Was it true? If so obviously as I said someone could slip in. Or did he go out the back while someone else entered in his place? Or did he simply bring someone in the back and was present when Julia was attacked?

I don't want to sound like a total fruitcake here, but has anyone seen Dial M for Murder? Considering I now know she was on the OTHER side of the room, it makes you wonder if the attacker could have slipped in while Wallace walked Julia down the entry, then hid behind their thick curtains. Emerging to batter her when she set up the parlor at Wallace's request. He may have even come back in with her. This would of course leave William free from any splatter. It's also possible but less likely that Julia was told to set up the parlor for William's return at 8 PM (which may be why he seemed to put significance on that time) and the killer had hidden there all that time. The curtains would have been drawn since it was night. So literally almost identical to the plot of Dial M for Murder lmfao.

If this is wrong then Gannon's book has the facts wrong. Because he claims the blood was sprayed above the double seated sofa (so the one by the window).

I have made a short list of contradictions of the facts, by the way:

1) Mrs. Johnston claimed she said "whatever have they used".

In court it was put to Wallace that he had said it, and he agreed.


2) Mrs. Johnston claimed in a first statement that she asked if it was Julia's matchbox (which William confirmed).

In a second statement, Mrs. Johnston claimed she asked if it was William's matchbox (which William confirmed).


3) William claimed he found £4 was missing from the cash box after Mr. Johnston had left for the police. Mr. Johnston claimed he asked William if anything was taken and it was at this point that William found £4 missing.


4) William and the Johnston's originally made statements that William had told them to wait outside. All parties changed this statement to say that Mr. Johnston told him to go inside while they wait outside.


5) The Johnstons claimed they had not seen rooms in the Wallace's apart from the parlor. Unfortunately this is untrue because they had previously housesat for the Wallace's while they were away on vacation.


6) Mr. Johnston claimed in a press statement that Wallace had to force the door open. In court he said the precise opposite that it opened easily in the usual way, with no violence in the opening.


7) Suspicious but plausible: Despite being on postcard and housesitting and petsitting terms, and having confirmed conversations from their back yards (e.g. Flo and Julia at 4.30 pm the day of the murder) Johnston claimed he did not even know her name was Julia. They were neighbors for a decade. It's plausible but very weird.

His court testimony is weird as well since he first says he heard William call out "a name" and then says "a word". He then uses "word" again before being asked if it sounded like a name and he replied in the affirmative and added that he did not even know her name.


8) There's actually a lot more differences but because I haven't seen the files I don't know what are legit contradictions/retracted statements, and what things the author has just got wrong or mixed up. Every book on the case describes the series of events when he go home until the police arrived in a different sequence or with different phrases/actions.

For example one book claims Mr. Johnston said immediately he will go for the police - though I'm not sure this could be true since he and William then went around investigating the burglary.

Remember there's a whole street of people - they could have "investigated" while Flo or one of their other relatives or ANY other neighbor ran off to alert the authorities.

The complete silence of their discovery until John gets the police is every bit as peculiar as the total silence of the murder (should it have truly been a robbery).

---

Also keep in mind, the Johnston's were leaving their home at 20 to 9 at night. Most people are still awake at this time, but it's an odd time to go visiting huh? I mean by the time they arrived their relative could very well be getting ready to go to bed?

Also I'm sorry Herlock but my idea that Wallace KNEW they were going out through Julia (who had been told by Florence) has been proven false by Goodman's book, in which it is stated that they had not even decided that they would be going out visiting until John got home from work at 6 PM. Then again that's before William went out, so perhaps he could've got into a brief conversation where that information came to light... But that has never been mentioned.

According to Mrs. Johnston, Julia's body was warm when discovered, but when alone with William it had become cold. See what you make of all this information I've compiled.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I will add the mackintosh is of big importance. If he was legitimately shocked that it was there it shows he was not present when it was chucked over or shoved under her or whatever. The fact it was so badly burned (almost halfway in fact) lends credence to the idea that it was used as a means to put out a fire (or last minute incinerstion was attenpted and interrupted). It's harder to imagine how it had caught fire - and so severely at that - if he was wearing it the whole time.

There's evidence Julia's skirt was burned and her actual body was moved - which adds up with her being pulled out of the fire. IIRC she was moved by her hair judging from the forensic report... I would think the perp would avoid touching a part of her that was on fire, so perhaps her head and hair was clear of the flames?

William's initial statement to Munro was that he first noticed it with Mrs. Johnston. This would be after John had gone for the police. I think the timing of that could be important because as I said, if John has gone for the police, they're now on very limited time (if in it together) to discard any additional evidence.

---

If used as a shield from blood then since William is so much taller than his wife, I doubt any of her jackets would have fitted him. They may have fitted a smaller man to be fair... But it may have forced him to use his own if he killed her himself. I would have thought with how condemning it is he would have made more effort to explain away its presence or picked something up from.a charity shop. I don't know...

Something to think about. I struggle to find a logical answer for why and how it got so badly burned apart from my friend's suggestion. Or a purposeful attempt at incineration which the person was unable to complete for whatever reason.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Well, to address your replies:

5) No, if they were working together it doesn't really make a difference. We don't even know if he WAS play acting with the door for certain in that case (remember - IF the Jonstons are involved, you have to question EVERYTHING they claimed happened). Either way here IS what William was initially going for:

"William goes to the front door, knocks, no answer. He goes round to the back and finds it bolted against him. He goes back around to the front and at this point the person in the house escapes out the back door. He goes back around to the back door and this time it opens easily, since it's no longer bolted against him."

You might think that's stupid, but that is LITERALLY what he was going for if he was guilty. In court they made him admit that he'd had to give up that theory since it makes no sense.

7/8/9) Parry was involved without being forced to do it. I mean, blackmail is possible, but I see it far more likely there was just some false pretext. The following day he acts totally normal, just going about his day, as though he doesn't expecting anything bad is going to happen. He doesn't expect Julia is going to be killed.

When he goes to Parkes' garage, Parkes apparently knew that Julia Wallace had been murdered at that time. If he mentioned this to Gordon, Gordon may have realized he was involved unwittingly in a murder scheme and acted really weird. I don't believe he told Parkes he dropped a weapon down a grid etc. Like I said the ONLY way I can see this happening is if he was freaking out to Parkes about how he'd been tricked into calling and had all this stuff dumped on him (in this case Gordon also already knew about the murder - probably) but Parkes is unreliable. He has a personal vendetta against Parry and I think he took a tiny grain of truth and exaggerated into ridiculousness that's hard to believe.

My friend and I do not tend to feel it's likely he would accidentally get confused. That's our position, I don't think it's going to change since we're repeating the points back and forth. We don't think it's at all likely he would get confused. And we also think it's MORE likely William would tell the truth about his route.

14) What it's HEAVILY in favor of is that this was anything OTHER than a burglary gone wrong. Some clean up attempt may have been made... Now IF the Johnstons are involved, there's time for them to let William check around and make sure everything's in order before he goes to get the cops. They have time to discard things which shouldn't be there, time to clean blood off door handles, that sort of thing. After all - they remained silent during the entire discovery ordeal - so no neighbors were alerted, and nobody even knew anything was awry until John went to the police... The blood on the notes in the vase is interesting, because when William was sent upstairs to check on things (again, for some reason) while John was still in the house he came down and allegedly said there's money in a vase they haven't taken. So that raises a posibility he, at the time, had blood on his hands, and that's how it got onto those notes. Just a thought.

When it comes to the mackintosh. A very smart man would have used one of Julia's own jackets, or even a completely new jacket from a charity store or w.e... It's not intelligent to purposefully leave one of your own possessions smeared in blood under her body. Maybe he did - but in hindsight it would be very stupid of him.

17) He was quite familiar with the area. He had violin lessons around there, Mr. Crewe lived there, and he wrote in his diary that he and Julia had (allegedly) gone to Calderstones park like, a week earlier. He also said they would go there at least once a year to look at the roses.

---

As for the rest the milk boy WAS forced to change his timing. He said 7.45. They forced him back to 7.30. The real time was ~7.37.

Anyone could have slipped in to be honest. But yes Mr. Johnston is the most likely candidate in that scenario. The fact he went back on his word which actually helped his own defence makes me suspicious that that is indeed what happened. IMO.

Yes they could have said they'd seen her with the cat.

I'd like to know how accurate rectal temperature was. How much time could they feasibly get away with saying they saw her at before forensics prove them liars? And of course the cat didn't come back until the police arrived. I think the cat may indeed have been removed on purpose... Call me stupid but I even think it might have been for altruistic reasons LOL (e.g., William didn't want poor Puss to see Julia's brains based in), or more logically that the cat may have made noise if distressed? I'm not sure. Its disappearance and reappearance in THOSE weather conditions for me is odd. But I struggle to see the purpose of the cat. It's one of the case oddities along with the random unnecessary mention of the dog whip etc.

Johnston couldn't call (if you mean at the front door). The front door is far too risky. If someone came in it was through the back. But yes William could have said let's have music, after having unbolted the yard door and opened the back door. And then Mr. Johnston could have come in yes.

"Mistaken at worse" I wouldn't think so. You can't really be mistaken about seeing someone running from the scene, you could be mistaken about a voice... I THINK they could have gotten away with this. And it would exonerate William yes. But I do think if they go too far they themselves are going to become suspects. IMHO it's better to give plausibly deniable evidence like thuds that could be Arthur's boots. Gives the impression it was Julia getting wacked, but if they're proven wrong via forensics (or whatever) then they have nothing to fear because they can be like "ah right, must've been Arthur then"... Hearing voices, seeing suspects, these are things more difficult to give plausible deniability to. They could probably get away with it. It's not risk free. But I find myself in agreement.

But then gain Wallace could also have done more. I mean he returns home and he's trying to say someone was still in the house... Yet he claims he heard absolutely nothing from inside. No thuds, no nothing. He could've said the yard door wouldn't open when he went round the back, but once he went to the front then back around it was open along with the back door... But I tend to agree with your angle more than not.

---

If Julia caught fire yes, they would likely use something in the room, which lends credibility to Wallace chucking his own mackintosh over her to put out the flames. The mackintosh was after all quite badly burnt. This does not necessarily mean he acted alone by the way, but it's deifnitely possible. It's a smart point from my friend that I don't think has ever been thought of.

---

As for the final parts, Johnstons did have time to clean up before William got back. Of course, William would want to check things jus tto be sure, since really its his neck on the line here. I think it would be terribly unlikely for him to just automatically trust they did everything right and run off to the police without making sure first.

As for going into the parlor last - again, if the Johnstons are involved, remember, EVERYTHING that happened from his arrival home could be warped or entirely fabricated. If he did go into the parlor last that does suggest knowledge that he shouldn't have. But I understand people who argue the opposite. After all it's a rarely used room, it's late at night with a sick wife, maybe she went to sleep in bed.

---

My friend and I will have to discuss this more. We both think the Johnstons should AT LEAST be considered possible suspects, we find it ridiculous they are automatically dismissed when they are actually among the strongest candidates for collaboration with William.

Like I said we're more sure about the first part. That William didn't make the call, and Parry probably did under flase pretense (again I didn't even know about the café thing until he told me, which strengthens it even more). The involvement of the Johnstons is something we think needs to be strongly considered but we aren't saying with certainty that they were in on it. But their automatic dismissal as even being potential suspects is frankly dishonest.

We want more information on Marsden... We'd also like more information on possible connections between the Qualtrough whos' daughter had her birthday that day, and any of the suspects involved. Though my thinking is the alias was used to frame Parry/Marsden for the crime.

[Herlock Sholmes]

5) Well he was specifically told to go in alone while they waited. Of course he knew there was nobody in the house anyway in my view. And if the Johnstons were in on it they of course knew too.

Important to point out - if they're working together ALL events from his return to when the police arrive can't be fully trusted.
Then I’d have to ask why the play acting with the door? Either a) the backdoor was stuck and he couldn’t get in first time (and remember this would have been the first time that this had ever occurred) or b) he was pretending that there was someone still in the house. But if the Johnston’s were in on it then pretending that there was someone in the house wasn’t a part of the plan
7/8/9) First of all I don't think Parry knew necessarily that he would even need an alibi. So many reasons can be thought of as to how he may have been tricked into calling.
This is one point that, at least at the moment, I just can’t get past. I don’t think Wallace would have taken the massive risk of involving Parry (especially against his will)
In any case ask yourself with complete honesty: Would you forget that two days earlier you'd barged in on your girlfriend's music lesson? It's not an easy mistake to make.
Honestly, yes. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve sworn blind that something happened on a Thursday for example when it had happened on a Friday. Again 2 opinions. a) an innocent Parry, not believing that he needed an alibi gets something wrong or b) a guilty Parry, a man who is being implicated in a capitol crime, gives the world’s worst alibi. One that a reasonably competent toddler could have disproven. He easily had time to visit his girlfriend and ask her to cover for him but he doesn’t do that. Can we believe that Parry would have simply hoped that the police would have neglected to have checked his alibi?
So if we're being honest we have to actually consider every odd action and not just dismiss them quickly by saying, like, oh she was stressed, oh he forgot what he did that day.
Im balancing point a) against point b) For me point b) is the unlikeliest of the two.
As for Parkes there's very little chance his story is true. Nobody would randomly volunteer where they dropped a murder weapon etc.

14) I tend to think he didn't use it. My friend's suggestion of dousing out flames is good. But to use his OWN jacket as splatter protection and leave it with the body was tantamount to suicide. I tend to believe he didn't necessarily know it was there until John had gone for the police or even later after they arrived... It may well have been used in a panic to put out flames as my friend said.
The fact that there was no blood outside of the Parlour is heavily in favour of a guilty Wallace. Wallace had to clean up so that he could continue with the plan. Lights were turned out, doors were closed and locked and yet not a smidgeon of blood. This points to a level of caution that only Wallace would have needed to have taken.
You see how damning it is: You yourself say the mack being there makes you think Wallace HAD to have put it there. It's a huge and terrible blunder. Maybe he thought he could burn it entirely. I'm not sure.
The question was - what was Julia doing with the macintosh. So the implication was that she was just carrying it. I don’t see how it points to Wallace. I can think of no explanation as to how the Macintosh became bunched up underneath Julia. I’ve heard no one come up with a remotely plausible alternative. All the appearances are that this was put there deliberately. What reason and by whom? It can only have been William. And the only reason that I can give is that he used it to protect himself from blood and so he thought that by bunching it up beneath Julia the spatter would be smeared so as to not resemble spatter and it might also have got contaminated by the blood from Julia’s wounds.

And remember - who was it that suggested that the killer might have used the mackintosh as a shield?
16) It's in the trial. They question Wallace on why HE said that phrase. But earlier Flo claims she said it.
Ok
17) Maybe it's not, but William was acting lost and clueless saying he's a complete stranger in this district. We know that line is a lie since he knew the district well
It might be taking it a little far to say that he knew the area well but it appears that he was more familiar with it than he let on.
---

The three points you made are good. My friend doesn't like the third because it points police in their direction... They weren't suspected but if William was exonerated entirely like that, I'm quite sure they'd be major suspects. It would seem odd they saw William go and return. Like for real. I hadn't thought of that so I was initially on your side with that. But I think he makes a good point.
Tell him I’m disappointed. I thought point three was the strongest.
Remember even locals were suspicious of the Johnstons. They were hsrdly a pair the police wouldn't ever consider suspects. But they had William as suspect #1 and were even corrupt forcing the milk boy to change his timing etc.
We disagree there. I don’t think that they forced the milk boy to change his timings. The evidence of the Johnston’s and the Holme’s favour an earlier time too.
They could have got awsy with hearing her call out. But I want you to remember the VERY FIRST scenario William was trying to paint: 1. A killer was POSSIBLY.still in his house when he got home and 2. Julia walked down the entry with him allowing someone to slip in the back.
But the -allowing someone to slip in- only allows for Johnston. Wallace wasn’t trying to incriminate him. The cat! Why didn’t the Johnston’s say that they’d seen Julia in the backyard at say 7.45 and that she’d picked up the cat. If the Johnston’s were involved there were so many very simple ways of strengthening the case for William’s innocence.
He went back on the second. I do not know why since it was very good for his defence???? Maybe because that really IS what happened: e.g. William takes her down the entry, killer slips in, William tells her to go set up the fireplace for a guest he's going to meet and bring back... I'm not sure why else he would have changed the story here unless he forgot what he'd said... There's a reason, IMO, he wanted to make it seem that Julia had bolted the back yard door and I think it's because someone went in that way for real, and he didn't want police investigating that possibility.
A big issue that I have is that there was no need for all of this if the Johnston’s were involved. He could have gotten Julia into the Parlour, with it set up for a musical evening, the Johnston calls. He goes into the Parlour and.....
And for the first, if they hear Julia call out, it has to be at a time NEAR when William returns (hence the thuds they say they heard at half 8 or w.e.) since remember they're angling for the killer still being in there. To actually hear her speak, they could have been done over by forensic rectal temperature. I think they were smart to say they heard thuds but assumed it was Arthur. Backing up that someone was still in the house, yet giving themselves plausible deniability. If they'd gone too far (like saying they heard a man talk, Julia call out) forensics could have had them arrested easily.
They needn’t have mentioned thuds. They could have just said that they heard her call out. They could even have said that they thought that they’d heard someone at the front door. How could an intelligent William have missed all these very obvious possibilities to have used the Johnston’s to strengthen his alibi?
About sighting a man running I am not sure. They could have done this but it is potentially risky. But they could have. And I'd like to see what my friend thinks of this.
I can’t see it being too risky. The police might have said that they might have been mistaken at worst.

---

Btw my friend brought up another point. That two people were in the house. Ao for example William tells Julia it's been a long day (whatever) he's not going to the meeting because he found out the address is fake (whatever) and so let's have some music... So Julia sets up the parlor. The killer has already been let in the back. As she goes down to the fireplace he comes in and does her in. William.lwaves swiftly.
This could have occurred but equally it could have occurred with Wallace as the killer.
It's like saying "why didn't William say he heard noise in the house on his first visit to the back door, or why he didn't say he saw a atranger run up the entry or Richmond Park on his return.
Good points but William was always going to be a suspect. Corroboration from a third party (the Johnston’s is always better.)
I like my friends idea of the mack being used to put out a fire. It well could have happened. After all burning and smoke could alert neighbors.
It could have but I still question how it ended up where it did. And also, if Julia’s skirt caught fire would he have really gone out into the hall to pick up a coat for the flames? Wouldn’t he have more likely used something within the room?
---

But for me and my friend it's the first part we are more sure of, that William.went up that direction, and the two branched off. The caller maybe rings too early hence William's questioning of Beattie. But we really think odds are high Parry was in that box.
As I’ve said before WWH I certainly accept that the most difficult part of the Wallace-was-guilty viewpoint is the Monday night walk from house to tram. I have absolutely no doubt in my own mind that William could have made the call without Beattie recognising the voice. That’s no issue for me. But I agree the difficulty of Wallace being seen or recognised in an area that was considerably away from where he was supposed to have been.
I also think the mounting evidence regarding the strange Johnston behavior, lies, slips in courf, should have anyone serious about the case considering them suspects.
I can’t see it but I could be wrong of course.
My friend also raised the point that they could have used the whole "investing the burglary" thing to account for time they spent cleaning the scene etc. And POSSIBLY incineratimg vital evidence.
To be honest, if the Johnston’s were involved then they would have had time to clean up before William returned.

As you know I think that a major pointer to William’s guilt is that fact that, on his return, he avoided the Parlour to go upstairs. I still can’t dismiss this as others do. I think it’s significant but it wouldn’t have been significant if the Johnston’s were involved. If the Johnston’s were a part of the plan he’d have opened the Parlour door as soon as he emerged from the kitchen.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I also want to make a note od how weirdly silent the entire discovery was. Nobody yelled out. Nobody did anything that could have alerted neighbors.

Remember it's a street full of people. If John and Flo wanted to stay put they could easily go wack on neighbor's doors and say what's happened and to for emergency services. They could have got their own family to do it.

But it's almost like they didn't want to raise the alarm until they were sure the crime scene was just right, bloody marks wiped off handles. Whatever else. They purposefully wanted to wait until the scene was right before the police arrival.

[WallaceWackedHer]

5) Well he was specifically told to go in alone while they waited. Of course he knew there was nobody in the house anyway in my view. And if the Johnstons were in on it they of course knew too.

Important to point out - if they're working together ALL events from his return to when the police arrive can't be fully trusted.

7/8/9) First of all I don't think Parry knew necessarily that he would even need an alibi. So many reasons can be thought of as to how he may have been tricked into calling.

In any case ask yourself with complete honesty: Would you forget that two days earlier you'd barged in on your girlfriend's music lesson? It's not an easy mistake to make.

So if we're being honest we have to actually consider every odd action and not just dismiss them quickly by saying, like, oh she was stressed, oh he forgot what he did that day.

As for Parkes there's very little chance his story is true. Nobody would randomly volunteer where they dropped a murder weapon etc.

14) I tend to think he didn't use it. My friend's suggestion of dousing out flames is good. But to use his OWN jacket as splatter protection and leave it with the body was tantamount to suicide. I tend to believe he didn't necessarily know it was there until John had gone for the police or even later after they arrived... It may well have been used in a panic to put out flames as my friend said.

You see how damning it is: You yourself say the mack being there makes you think Wallace HAD to have put it there. It's a huge and terrible blunder. Maybe he thought he could burn it entirely. I'm not sure.

16) It's in the trial. They question Wallace on why HE said that phrase. But earlier Flo claims she said it.

17) Maybe it's not, but William was acting lost and clueless saying he's a complete stranger in this district. We know that line is a lie since he knew the district well

---

The three points you made are good. My friend doesn't like the third because it points police in their direction... They weren't suspected but if William was exonerated entirely like that, I'm quite sure they'd be major suspects. It would seem odd they saw William go and return. Like for real. I hadn't thought of that so I was initially on your side with that. But I think he makes a good point.

Remember even locals were suspicious of the Johnstons. They were hsrdly a pair the police wouldn't ever consider suspects. But they had William as suspect #1 and were even corrupt forcing the milk boy to change his timing etc.

They could have got awsy with hearing her call out. But I want you to remember the VERY FIRST scenario William was trying to paint: 1. A killer was POSSIBLY.still in his house when he got home and 2. Julia walked down the entry with him allowing someone to slip in the back.

He went back on the second. I do not know why since it was very good for his defence???? Maybe because that really IS what happened: e.g. William takes her down the entry, killer slips in, William tells her to go set up the fireplace for a guest he's going to meet and bring back... I'm not sure why else he would have changed the story here unless he forgot what he'd said... There's a reason, IMO, he wanted to make it seem that Julia had bolted the back yard door and I think it's because someone went in that way for real, and he didn't want police investigating that possibility.

And for the first, if they hear Julia call out, it has to be at a time NEAR when William returns (hence the thuds they say they heard at half 8 or w.e.) since remember they're angling for the killer still being in there. To actually hear her speak, they could have been done over by forensic rectal temperature. I think they were smart to say they heard thuds but assumed it was Arthur. Backing up that someone was still in the house, yet giving themselves plausible deniability. If they'd gone too far (like saying they heard a man talk, Julia call out) forensics could have had them arrested easily.

About sighting a man running I am not sure. They could have done this but it is potentially risky. But they could have. And I'd like to see what my friend thinks of this.

---

Btw my friend brought up another point. That two people were in the house. Ao for example William tells Julia it's been a long day (whatever) he's not going to the meeting because he found out the address is fake (whatever) and so let's have some music... So Julia sets up the parlor. The killer has already been let in the back. As she goes down to the fireplace he comes in and does her in. William.lwaves swiftly.

It's like saying "why didn't William say he heard noise in the house on his first visit to the back door, or why he didn't say he saw a atranger run up the entry or Richmond Park on his return.

I like my friends idea of the mack being used to put out a fire. It well could have happened. After all burning and smoke could alert neighbors.

---

But for me and my friend it's the first part we are more sure of, that William.went up that direction, and the two branched off. The caller maybe rings too early hence William's questioning of Beattie. But we really think odds are high Parry was in that box.

I also think the mounting evidence regarding the strange Johnston behavior, lies, slips in courf, should have anyone serious about the case considering them suspects.

My friend also raised the point that they could have used the whole "investing the burglary" thing to account for time they spent cleaning the scene etc. And POSSIBLY incineratimg vital evidence.