Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Murder of Julia Wallace (1931) - Full DPP case files

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What's quite interesting, is that as you can see in the modern video, there's some kind of mechanism like a lock and key for regulating the fire. I suppose the intensity/temperature. I also saw William reference "regulating the gas fire" in the John Bull articles.

    In the advert directly above for the sunbeam, there appears to be a similar little nodule thing on the right hand side.

    I've always had the impression in my mind that lighting the fire would be a two second job, chuck a match and job done. Evidently it's not the case, it would actually take around 30 seconds because you have to turn the gas on, then strike a match, light the gas, and then fiddle with the gas knob to get it how you want it.

    So that's very, very interesting isn't it...

    What if she wasn't hit while lighting the fire, but while fiddling with the gas knob?

    And actually again that's quite interesting for a pre-med attack isn't it... If she has to turn on the gas with a key/knob thing like we see in that video, then strike a match, and you were planning to kill her as quickly as possible... Well, you would have it done and dusted before she ever even struck the match. Probably before she could even turn the gas on.

    That doesn't make any sense... That's pretty important evidence actually.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      Why didn’t they take a photo of her skirt so that we could actually see whether it matches up?!

      We could do with an older poster who remembers this type of fire.
      Someone told me moste is an older poster, maybe he remembers these things.

      Here's an extract from the trial, the abridged Brown version but still I can copy paste that so it's easier:

      "Do you know that the bottom of this woman’s skirt
      shows a mark where it was upon that gas-fire ? — I do not.

      There is evidence, if you will take it from me, given by
      the police that there are three characteristic burn marks
      on the lower part of the skirt, corresponding with that
      gas-fire, which would indicate that the gas-fire had been
      alight, would it not ? — Yes.

      You see the handle to the gas-fire is on the right-hand
      side of it ? — Yes.

      And just above it is a gas-light ? — Yes.

      Suppose a woman went into that room, lit the gas, and
      lit the fire, she would have to stoop down, would she
      not ? — Presumably, yes.

      If she did that with her back towards the doorway and
      someone was on her right-hand side, he would be in a
      position to strike her as she rose ? — He would.

      And her head might well be in the very position in
      which you put it ? — Exactly."
      "Handle to the gas fire" I think is the thing you turn to put on (and then regulate) the gas, and in the advert for the sunbeam I think you will agree with me that it can be seen where it is:



      What has evidently happened, unless the killer put the gas knob on, is:

      Julia has turned on the gas using that handle.

      She's fetched her box of matches (maybe she kept a box in her pocket), drawn a match, struck it, and stooped down there to ignite the gas. Her next move would be to regulate the gas using the knob, but she's been hit.

      OR she did regulate it... But I think now I can see how this has happened... Because the knob is on the right, she's in front of the fire and to reach the knob she has to lean across to the right. Now look at the morgue photo.

      WARNING: Morgue Photo:

      https://i.imgur.com/CkPZruf.png

      (Tbh don't like looking at that because it reminds me this is a sad death of an innocent woman not a Poirot episode).... But you see that gaping wound right? That's the kill shot. That's HER left I think. Unless the image is flipped.

      So if she's reaching down to that knob there, I don't think she can have been hit there WHILE she was doing that because the side of the fireplace would cover that spot.

      So she's either been hit after lighting the fire just before she goes to reach for the knob to regulate the fire, or it's after she regulated the fire and rose.

      That giant gaping wound is more on the top of her head it seems, top front left. So the killer is above her.

      ---

      That has to be it, right?
      Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-14-2020, 06:39 PM.

      Comment


      • Hi guys, you've got my interest here, I grew up with coal and gas fires of varying vintage and also had a living flame gas. As far as I can see, the Willson heats up like a traditional gas fire, with the glowing blocks, in front is a ceramic "fake coal" which starts to glow when hot, giving an unconvincing coal fire effect. These things gave off a ferocious heat, as such it was normal to have a traditional fire guard. I recall melting my shoes to one in the early nineties.
        I've attached a link to an interesting article.

        https://ezinearticles.com/?History-o...res&id=6143838
        Them's the vagaries.

        Comment


        • Okay hang on let me try to paint the picture here, I've got it. I've never ever ever understood how a shot to her left sent her into the fire. But let me just forget what MacFall said because this seems to be what's happened, right:



          Julia's just put on the gas, she's just lit the fire. She's now going back for the knob (reaching right this would mean) to regulate the fire).

          Morgue photo shows precisely where she was hit [GRAPHIC]:

          https://i.imgur.com/CkPZruf.png

          At that moment a strike comes raining down on her. NOW it makes sense the direction of the force puts her into the fire. Her skirt is burned, the fire probably not properly regulated yet.

          I'm right aren't I?

          We just figured out Blue's Clues mate.

          Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-14-2020, 07:05 PM.

          Comment


          • Hi Wallace, all the old gas fires we had had to be held "on" for about 30 seconds or there about or they shut off as a safety measure. They're also tricky buggers and never light first time, so you'd be on your hands knees swearing at it.
            Them's the vagaries.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
              Hi Wallace, all the old gas fires we had had to be held "on" for about 30 seconds or there about or they shut off as a safety measure. They're also tricky buggers and never light first time, so you'd be on your hands knees swearing at it.
              Oh very interesting... In fact, the more info you can give on this the better, every tiny tidbit of info about old time gas fires would be vital.

              I think what I wrote above is how it happened. Looking at that wound you can see it's a "top down" type of attack. I think she was at the time doing something with the knob for the fire after lighting it, turned her head left and back (as in, to look towards where the parlour door would be) and she's been struck. That makes perfect complete sense now that she would go into the fire from there.

              It never made sense she would fall in there from the armchair.

              It would mean though, that I, a complete layman, am arrogantly arguing with the opinion of a forensic expert who did this job for a living lmao. Because he thinks her head is facing left. Hang on... I think I need to revise my thinking here...

              I've always found this exceptionally complicated... Bear with me while my slowass brain grinds its gears.

              Let me get a bigger photo of the detective mag pic and I'll try to make a photo illustrating the event.
              Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-14-2020, 07:07 PM.

              Comment


              • Wallace, I'm certainly not an expert and this type of fire is vintage, but from the little I gather from the advert you posted, the fake coal stays in place, the grate at the bottom is removed and it's lit from the very bottom. I had one, newer admittedly, but it lit the same from ground level so you had to be almost prone to light it. It looks like the gas lights low and heats the fake coal above. These were a pain, clumsy things to light.
                Them's the vagaries.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                  Wallace, I'm certainly not an expert and this type of fire is vintage, but from the little I gather from the advert you posted, the fake coal stays in place, the grate at the bottom is removed and it's lit from the very bottom. I had one, newer admittedly, but it lit the same from ground level so you had to be almost prone to light it. It looks like the gas lights low and heats the fake coal above. These were a pain, clumsy things to light.
                  That's helpful, even that small tidbit. So Julia would probably have to be legitimately down on her knees to light this? Or is it possible she might have done it by simply stooping down? Did she have arthritis? (Just wondering if she had any mobility issue as my grandma would not get down on her knees since she'd have a hard time getting back up).

                  But okay so anyway...

                  She's managed to turn on the gas by the knob on the right - this has to be done for the fire to even be lit. She's then managed to strike a match and light the fire evidently, and from what you're saying this is a somewhat clumsy affair, so we might imagine it taking about a minute (considering you said you have to hold it for at least 30 seconds to avoid it automatically turning off as a safety feature - albeit not sure if fireplaces THAT old would have such safety feature)... But still let's call it 30 seconds to a minute...

                  Either way we see she has indeed lit the fireplace successfully.

                  Now, the knob for this fireplace is on the right. Her next move should be to go for that knob to regulate the fire is that right? So she's reaching across to the knob which is on the right.

                  I keep going back to the morgue photos because it really helps. But from that wound, I think it's very unlikely she would be hit in that specific position because the left of her head is right by the fireplace. The assailant is of course going to be in a position better suited to strike the right side or back of her head.

                  So these are the two possibilities and correct me if I'm wrong:

                  1. McFall is wrong, Julia's head was facing the complete opposite direction. She was going to regulate the fire when she turned her head left and back towards the parlour doorway, and was then struck by an assailant. The direction of the force sends her into the fireplace. Her feet we're chucked onto the opposite side of the room, he's just wrong.

                  2. McFall is right, which seems more likely on the face of it, since he's an actual forensic professional and I'm some random man on the internet so my opinion should probably be ignored LOL. But okay, so in McFall's version, she has regulated the gas, and as she's gone to get up she's been hit exactly where you see in the morgue photos by someone standing over her, and crumpled into the fire.

                  ---

                  Just me personally, the wound is quite tricky to determine anything from. Because when someone tells me someone's been hit THAT HARD (so hard to literally cave her skull into her brain) on the LEFT of her head, it makes no sense to me at all how she then FALLS to to the left.

                  I just think like... If a car hit you on the right side of your body you'd go flying off to the left wouldn't you?

                  It's a direction of force kind of thing...

                  It DOES seem to be more "downward" and Julia might have been getting up on one knee using her hands for leverage or something hence still falling left.

                  But that's the series of events. It has to be...

                  Match box retrieved -> Gas knob on the right of the fireplace turned on -> Match struck -> Fire lit -> Gas regulated -> Attempt to get up or turn head -> Struck down -> Fallen into the now lit fireplace.

                  I think Wallace in John Bull suggested Julia had not yet regulated the fire. If he's innocent you might be thinking "well what does his opinion matter?", but he would know how that particular fireplace worked. He may have had some reason to believe it could not have been regulated if burning like that occurred... And in that case I think she's either neglected to regulate the gas, or turned her head upon hearing a sound before she went for the knob and was struck.

                  Comment


                  • Can't offer any more on this, but just a thought, lighting on the right side, kneeling, right foot flat, left knee down, any blow is going to send her to the left. The natural position would have the left knee on the floor. If there was even a moment's reaction, a blow to the left of the head would still result in all the effort going through the right leg, hence falling left. Just my opinion.
                    Them's the vagaries.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                      Can't offer any more on this, but just a thought, lighting on the right side, kneeling, right foot flat, left knee down, any blow is going to send her to the left. The natural position would have the left knee on the floor. If there was even a moment's reaction, a blow to the left of the head would still result in all the effort going through the right leg, hence falling left. Just my opinion.
                      You might be right but it depends on how much "up and down" it is as opposed to "right to left". Imagining some baseball tier bat swing totally horizontal, I don't think ANY positioning of the knees and feet etc. would change that it would follow that direction.

                      But the wound is hard to determine. It does look much more downward than horizontal. It also makes SENSE it would be almost completely downwards.

                      Comment


                      • Hmm, this deserves further intense thought. I'll get some acid...
                        Them's the vagaries.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                          Hmm, this deserves further intense thought. I'll get some acid...
                          HA! You know, I would honestly recommend it if it didn't last so goddamn long. It makes your mind work SOOOOOO fast and hard that after a couple of hours it feels like you've run the London marathon five times over. And nothing stops it...

                          One of my fascinations aside from stuff like this is the malleability of the human mind and personality. Experimenting with personality-altering substances and very carefully documenting the affects. I have a bunch of biopsychology and psychology university textbooks. Such an amazing topic to me.

                          But yeah it really does...

                          Check the blood spray:





                          ---

                          What we are told by McFall, is that this splatter is from the first strike.

                          Julia's "killing blow" wound:

                          https://i.imgur.com/CkPZruf.png

                          Now what McFall's trying to tell us, is that Julia is sitting on the armchair with her head turned a little left... Well that seems impossible to me the layman, for the spray to go there because the killer would have to be stood in a REALLY odd place. Or alternatively, he said Roland Oliver might be right that she was stooping to the fire when struck - or getting up from the fire.

                          Roland Oliver's suggestion seems more logical, correct?

                          But try to picture it. Because the wound is on JULIA'S left. HER left. So the killer is standing to the left too then, right?

                          Because of the gas knob being on the right of the actual fire - then we know she's already seen to the knob, she's lit the fire with a match, she's then looked left for some reason... Wallace believes it was before she had regulated the fire... So she's lit it, turned her head left, and was struck... If he's wrong then she's turned the knob and then turned her head left, either way.........

                          ---

                          But anyway remember WHY McFall thought she was in the chair. A lack of spray on the seat of the chair. I will need to check the trial yet again to make sure this was not disproved.

                          But what if it's not JULIA sitting on the chair. What if someone ELSE is sitting on the chair.

                          Julia has turned her head left, perhaps to talk to this man who is sitting there on that chair, and then he's hit her. What do you think?

                          So many possibilities.

                          Comment


                          • I know that I always appear to be the wet blanket but.....

                            I accept that because of the fire grate and the burns to the skirt and mackintosh that these three things are in all probability linked but it doesn’t automatically follow that Julia was struck as she was attending to the fire. Im 54 and when I was younger in the 70’s gas fires took a fair while to heat up. I’m sure Al would agree that it often seemed like ages until the room felt like the fire was actually on. We had it tough in the old days WWH So I’d have expected it to have taken a fair while to have heated up enough so that a skirt could have been singed on the grid. If it was anything like our old fire you could still touch the grid with your hands after it had been on for 5 minutes! So all I’m saying is that it’s difficult for me to see how the fire got hot enough quickly enough to cause the damage to her skirt. So this suggests to me that the fire had been on for a while when William...errr I mean the killer struck.

                            Seriously though this point isn’t made to strengthen the case as it doesn't point to anyone particular.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                            Comment


                            • How could Wallace have known that she hadn’t regulated the fire? Wasn’t the fire regulated by the same knob used to turn it on and off?So if it was in the ‘off’ position because the fire had been turned off then he wouldn’t have been able to tell if it had been regulated? Would he?
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                I know that I always appear to be the wet blanket but.....

                                I accept that because of the fire grate and the burns to the skirt and mackintosh that these three things are in all probability linked but it doesn’t automatically follow that Julia was struck as she was attending to the fire. Im 54 and when I was younger in the 70’s gas fires took a fair while to heat up. I’m sure Al would agree that it often seemed like ages until the room felt like the fire was actually on. We had it tough in the old days WWH So I’d have expected it to have taken a fair while to have heated up enough so that a skirt could have been singed on the grid. If it was anything like our old fire you could still touch the grid with your hands after it had been on for 5 minutes! So all I’m saying is that it’s difficult for me to see how the fire got hot enough quickly enough to cause the damage to her skirt. So this suggests to me that the fire had been on for a while when William...errr I mean the killer struck.

                                Seriously though this point isn’t made to strengthen the case as it doesn't point to anyone particular.
                                No it seems you're right, I heard the suggestion from Gannon before and I think it makes sense. A grid wouldn't go from cold to burning in milliseconds.

                                But I'm just going by what McFall said. I'm not familiar with these fires at all but if she hadn't "regulated" it would that mean the flames would be full blast? Would that make any difference (for example, could the flames catch something alight through the gaps in the grid)? How long would it take do you expect (like a random ballpark) for it to be hot enough to burn something if the flames are on full. Or how long would something need to be in contact with it?

                                The thing is, the fire having already been on doesn't match the forensic suggestion.

                                They're saying she's sitting in that chair... And okay fine, but then the killer is where to hit her in that position for the spray to go where it did? In a VERY odd position, especially because we can see where he WASN'T standing from where the splashes hit the wall. He'd be like, crouching by the armchair near the photos like Bob from Twin Peaks.

                                So I don't like that suggestion. And I also don't think she could fall into that fire from the chair. Too far away...

                                If the unabridged trial has nothing to disprove the seat was clean, then maybe it's actually the killer who is sitting on the chair. But McFall says Julia is "too low to be standing"... So what's she doing exactly?

                                If the fire's already lit, has she gone to perhaps turn the heat up or down?

                                Is McFall just completely wrong (realistically likely, given how incompetent he is).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X