Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Did you ask a while ago whether the fire in the Parlour was on or off or am I wrong? I couldn’t remember.

Anyway it looks like it was on as Hemmerde says to Wallace:

H: And after having done so, struck her eleven blows in all, turned off the gas fire and went out?

W: I do not know what he did.

H: Does that strike you as being a probable thing, that a man would remember to turn the gas off and go out?

So Wallace doesn't disagree that the fire was off when he entered the Parlour.

Okay so if this was me another thing I would have done is leave the fireplace on. Apparently in this scheme I want to make it seem someone had recently been in the house and was maybe still there when I got home.

So what I'd do is leave it on low then when I got back and went in alone, turn it off. Then the room is warm just like it would be if recently off.

I do not see Florence's time estimate her testimony is so long I will have to read it quite thoroughly. If you can give me a page number it'd help a lot.

In any case I don't think we can rely on these people to have nailed exactly how long he was in there and the prosecutors did note this. We just know that according to John it was "a short time". Now if Florence had been asked a similar question - maybe directly asked if it seemed it took him long considering his actions - we might have some better idea.

[moste]

Excellent point OneRound

PC Rothwell described him wearing the mackintosh when he saw Wallace on his afternoon round.

I thought Wallace left his Mack at home for his afternoon rounds, because the weather turned fine?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I thought Wallace left his Mack at home for his afternoon rounds, because the weather turned fine?

He was wearing his lighter jacket on whichever round he got home at 6.05 PM from. I know this because I considered he had battered Julia with the jacket he happened to have walked into the house wearing (but it turned out I was wrong and it was at this point in the hall).

However this is apparently a premeditated attack. There is no need for anyone to see him wearing this jacket in the weeks leading up to the crime. I think it could only have been premeditated by about 2 to 4 weeks at most, whenever the "Julia late home" diary entry was made, the motive I believe came only after that.

[moste]

He was wearing his lighter jacket on whichever round he got home at 6.05 PM from. I know this because I considered he had battered Julia with the jacket he happened to have walked into the house wearing (but it turned out I was wrong and it was at this point in the hall).

However this is apparently a premeditated attack. There is no need for anyone to see him wearing this jacket in the weeks leading up to the crime. I think it could only have been premeditated by about 2 to 4 weeks at most, whenever the "Julia late home" diary entry was made, the motive I believe came only after that.

Don’t think your quite catching my drift. If Rothwell saw Wallace wearing his Mackintosh on his afternoon rounds , he couldn’t have left it at home! Your typical Mackintosh of that era was a fairly heavy gabardine waterproof material , and reached to between the knee and ankle, with a customary broad belt and buckle . What Wallace describes as his afternoon round attire was an all together lighter affair, Did P C Rothwell actually use the name ‘Mackintosh? It’s just these little loose ends one likes to clear up

[moste]

Unless of course Rothwell actually saw Wallace as he completed his morning stint, and was on his way home around 1 00 pm , that might answer it.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Don’t think your quite catching my drift. If Rothwell saw Wallace wearing his Mackintosh on his afternoon rounds , he couldn’t have left it at home! Your typical Mackintosh of that era was a fairly heavy gabardine waterproof material , and reached to between the knee and ankle, with a customary broad belt and buckle . What Wallace describes as his afternoon round attire was an all together lighter affair, Did P C Rothwell actually use the name ‘Mackintosh? It’s just these little loose ends one likes to clear up

Oh no I got that. I don't think he saw William in the raincoat but you can check, I'm just playing some CoD atm. It'll be on the trial.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Okay yes it's a different jacket. It's the light fawn one. The one beneath Julia is slate grey. Both raincoats. He (Rothwell) calls it a macintosh. The fawn one is what William went to MGE wearing.

[WallaceWackedHer]

As for loose ends the main loose ends to tie up would be what was Gordon actually doing on Monday, what did he have to make a call at Park Lane for, why did Lily Lloyd say he arrived earlier than he did on Tuesday, and did William go out with and RETURN with a briefcase.

I mean you do realize Park Lane is a 6 minute walk from 24 North John Street, right?

So consider that in a scenario of innocence, it is plausible somebody was at the cafe to see William had arrived, and Gordon had driven down to pick him up in his car and give him a ride home.

I can tie up another loose end. I thought it was REALLY weird he mentioned the missing dog whip randomly, but as it turns out he also randomly mentioned a missing wood chopper which was gone for like, 12 months as well, and they found it under the stairs. So there is less importance to attach to the mention of the dog whip than I believed. I guess he's just a weirdo like that mentioning things he hasn't seen in a year lmao.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
But I don't think again the item is necessary unless worn even in your scenario. If it has to be waterproof it implies the attacker is wearing it. If he's just holding it up in front of him, it's not going to soak through onto his own clothing, and therefore any jacket will do.

Fair point, but if blood had soaked through might he not have been concerned that during the murder the coat might have brushed against his white shirtfront for example?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I thought Wallace left his Mack at home for his afternoon rounds, because the weather turned fine?

Cheers Moste. I was relying on my fallible memory when I should have checked first.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the issue of burning the jacket. Might not Sarah Jane Draper, when asked about anything being missing (on the Wednesday when William wasn’t there) have said that William’s two coats were missing from the hooks? Leading the police to think “well he’s wearing one so where is the other one?”

Another point is that it would have been extremely difficult for William to have avoided getting blood on his hands when folding up a bloody mackintosh so that he could get it into the kitchen stove.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As for loose ends the main loose ends to tie up would be what was Gordon actually doing on Monday, what did he have to make a call at Park Lane for, why did Lily Lloyd say he arrived earlier than he did on Tuesday, and did William go out with and RETURN with a briefcase.

I mean you do realize Park Lane is a 6 minute walk from 24 North John Street, right?

So consider that in a scenario of innocence, it is plausible somebody was at the cafe to see William had arrived, and Gordon had driven down to pick him up in his car and give him a ride home.

I can tie up another loose end. I thought it was REALLY weird he mentioned the missing dog whip randomly, but as it turns out he also randomly mentioned a missing wood chopper which was gone for like, 12 months as well, and they found it under the stairs. So there is less importance to attach to the mention of the dog whip than I believed. I guess he's just a weirdo like that mentioning things he hasn't seen in a year lmao.

There are real issues with the suggestion that Lily Lloyd gave Parry a false alibi.

1. Parry was already amply covered for the time of the murder without her alibi.
2. Her mother said 9.00-9.15 so she backs her up.
3. Why did she make this admission later - after she had been dumped by Parry?
4. Munro was very vague on what she’d said as far as I can recall?
5. If she’d given him a false alibi for the Tuesday then why didn’t she give him one for the Monday night?

An interesting fact, if memory serves, is that Hector Munro was a member of the same chess club although a higher level player.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Fair point, but if blood had soaked through might he not have been concerned that during the murder the coat might have brushed against his white shirtfront for example?

There's a possibility, but then we are saying that he had not shielded himself with it on the first strike (which would show a level of carelessness) followed then by extreme carefulness. It just would not make sense... In fact to leave himself uncovered for the first and most significant strike (allegedly the one to the front of the skull that opened it up), again puts heavy doubt on the idea that it was used in the way it is proposed.

If he is already planning to use it in this way, and already planning to leave it there at the scene, why is he leaving himself unprotected for the most significant strike of the bunch? What is the point in doing that?

I agree the first strike was probably not done shielded for the same reason as it is difficult to envision her falling into the fireplace from the armchair. It appears that the two burning accidents happened at the same time, which means that when Julia has gone into the fireplace, the jacket has followed her into it for some reason, which would only happen if she is wearing or holding it in some way...

Apparently the scorch marks on the skirt match the fireplace, I do not know if this is definitely true because the forensics in this case were quite appalling. If it does not match, it might well be that a fire on the jacket caught the skirt... But if it does match then she has almost certainly fallen into the fireplace.

Another possibility is the use of the jacket to douse out flames, and the material of the jacket being such that it catches light very easy. I think that specific point (the flammability of the material) was brought up on trial. So the jacket catching fire from the skirt... Or vice versa if the forensics are wrong about the skirt burns being a "match" for that fireplace.

I know it does not make any sense that she had worn it. But we do have to consider that very few people saw the original position of the body and jacket (and I think only two commented on it - Florence and William)... And out of those Florence said she IMMEDIATELY thought it looked as though Julia had worn it round her shoulders and that it seemed like something a woman might do. It doesn't make sense from the standpoint of "why has she done this?" but it makes the most sense in aspects outside of that.

We also have oddity about her dress throughout the day... For example, she went to see the baker's body with something round her neck, like a scarf or bit of material. This is not present in the crime scene photo, and William did not mention her having worn anything when she followed him down the yard... Now I think it would be important to see if he said she did not wear ANY jacket (or any type of covering) to follow him down the yard or just that she didn't wear THE jacket that was later found by the body... I do not know if Alan Close ever commented on her attire.

---

The fact the fireplace is off seems odd to me because I would think that it does not help anyone at all. And it makes me wonder if perhaps Julia had just turned it OFF rather than on when she was struck, the clays still hot enough at that point to cause the burning... And we have to remember also that it was apparently heated enough that - unless her body was left slumped in there for some time - she immediately caught fire, suggesting it had been on for a while... And then we have to ask why is she down there in that position yet again if not to regulate or turn out the fire?

If William is guilty he is best off leaving the fireplace on and turning it off when he gets in so his witnesses who then come in will feel as though the room was very recently used helping to support his story. I don't think we have any comment about the temperature they felt in the room - from the Johnstons or William...

What we do have though and this is peculiar and noteworthy, is that when Florence FIRST felt Julia she was not as cold, but only something like half hour later (whenever it was) she WAS cold. The first time she felt Julia then, may have been shortly after her death - or - the fireplace had been left on and was turned out by William when he re-entered the home as I mentioned above.

But this is strongly a matter for forensic science which I don't believe any of us are much qualified in, and would take knowledge of how quickly the room cooled, yadda yadda.

[WallaceWackedHer]

There are real issues with the suggestion that Lily Lloyd gave Parry a false alibi.

1. Parry was already amply covered for the time of the murder without her alibi.
2. Her mother said 9.00-9.15 so she backs her up.
3. Why did she make this admission later - after she had been dumped by Parry?
4. Munro was very vague on what she’d said as far as I can recall?
5. If she’d given him a false alibi for the Tuesday then why didn’t she give him one for the Monday night?

An interesting fact, if memory serves, is that Hector Munro was a member of the same chess club although a higher level player.

I don't know if Munro was vague, the most salient point to me is not the mention at the time she was dumped, but later when interviewed by Roger Wilkes. She and Parry were on good terms and communicated regularly, but she said that yes she had indeed fudged the time but that she doesn't believe that he killed her.

I know her mother backed her up, but it has to be considered that if she knows her daughter is going to say a certain time, she would drop her in it by being truthful... I mean Lily could actually be arrested for doing this... And to make such a claim after being jilted, it seems a bit extreme and also specific... Dangerous for herself and over the top as a revenge ploy. And beyond that I would imagine a "woman scorned" would be going around claiming she thinks Gordon killed Julia.

I do not know why she told the truth about Monday night. It could perhaps be out of fear for herself since she had taught pupils and could thus be proven to be a liar.

It is good evidence that the time she gave is accurate that she did not corroborate a Monday night story, and that her mother backed it up. But there are counterpoints. I think it would be important to know who gave the statement first. If Gordon gave his statement first then it makes more sense than the alternative (i.e. that they were questioned at the same time or whatever) that he would THEN go to Lily like "I told the police this please back me up" and she refuses to lie about Monday because the events can be proven and endanger her... If he was not expecting to be caught or brought in for questioning, he may not have prepared any alibi and thus made up what he did on the spot.

You have to remember he said he'd picked her up at some place he can't remember where she was teaching. Well to go along with this, she's going to have to then tell the police where he apparently picked her up and what student she was with at the time.

I think if she wanted to she could have helped him out a little bit still with Monday night, and pushed the time back a little.

I cannot answer for this, and I cannot answer for why when she later swore she lied about his arrival time on Tuesday, she didn't also add in some extra B.S. about Monday IF she's just a woman scorned.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't know if Munro was vague, the most salient point to me is not the mention at the time she was dumped, but later when interviewed by Roger Wilkes. She and Parry were on good terms and communicated regularly, but she said that yes she had indeed fudged the time but that she doesn't believe that he killed her.

I know her mother backed her up, but it has to be considered that if she knows her daughter is going to say a certain time, she would drop her in it by being truthful... I mean Lily could actually be arrested for doing this... And to make such a claim after being jilted, it seems a bit extreme and also specific... Dangerous for herself and over the top as a revenge ploy. And beyond that I would imagine a "woman scorned" would be going around claiming she thinks Gordon killed Julia.

I do not know why she told the truth about Monday night. It could perhaps be out of fear for herself since she had taught pupils and could thus be proven to be a liar.

It is good evidence that the time she gave is accurate that she did not corroborate a Monday night story, and that her mother backed it up. But there are counterpoints. I think it would be important to know who gave the statement first. If Gordon gave his statement first then it makes more sense than the alternative (i.e. that they were questioned at the same time or whatever) that he would THEN go to Lily like "I told the police this please back me up" and she refuses to lie about Monday because the events can be proven and endanger her... If he was not expecting to be caught or brought in for questioning, he may not have prepared any alibi and thus made up what he did on the spot.

You have to remember he said he'd picked her up at some place he can't remember where she was teaching. Well to go along with this, she's going to have to then tell the police where he apparently picked her up and what student she was with at the time.

I think if she wanted to she could have helped him out a little bit still with Monday night, and pushed the time back a little.

I cannot answer for this, and I cannot answer for why when she later swore she lied about his arrival time on Tuesday, she didn't also add in some extra B.S. about Monday IF she's just a woman scorned.

On Munro I’m relying on memory. I’m assuming that it was Wilkes who mentioned him? I think that when Munro was first asked about Lily Lloyd he was a very old man (something is telling me that he was around 90)

The big issue for me, and this was addressed by Murphy, is that Parry wasn’t reliant on Lily Lloyd or her mother for an alibi. The Brine’s are sufficient to provide him with an alibi (then the PO, Hignett’s and the Williamson’s) so I cant see why Lloyd would need to lie about his alibi? But it does appear that she’d visited Munro. I’ll have to listen to the radio series again but I don’t think that there was any detail.