Tweet
Originally posted by harry
View Post
It does not mean there was a visitor, she could be taken in there to give the impression of such.
But I have a hard time with the positioning and such because there has been ample opportunity to wack her and it was not done until she had reached the other side of the room and turned round. Same with a hitman, he has gone into the home expressly to kill her and apparently let her set the lamps, fire, sofa, etc. and just not attacked her despite all this opportunity.
What is mostly looks like is that the fire was on, she got up from the couch, and was blindsided. Look at the direction of force, if she is on the right of the room facing in and is hit on HER left (the piano side of the room) the force is coming from that way to the fire, so when her body falls it would be more likely sent to the fire. Vice versa if she is on the left of the room facing the window, a strike on the left would make her fall to the piano side because that's where the force is going. All strikes are on HER left and you can see her feet are over there on the lounger side as well as her box of matches.
(Because the gas tap is that side and because the radiants take time to cool or heat, there is a possibility Julia actually just turned it off by the tap when struck).
Because it's blunt force and she's so fragile I don't think she would remain conscious at all. So not stumbling around like a stab wound victim. I think she just was out like a light as would be expected (I invite anyone to get hit by an iron implement hard and see if they stay conscious) and if she went into the fire it's because the force of the strike sent her that way or she was pushed (in the latter case she would still be conscious until her head is hit).
...
The police were already trying to arrest him within days but were told they didn't have a strong enough case at that time.
Bailey or Gold made a statement that they had examined him for blood stains on the night of the murder. Again Gold should not even be on this investigation, I think he did this? One of the two. At the police station they examined all his clothing etc.
...
The jury made an objectively wrong decision based on the evidence presented to them, and the case irrespective of the man's guilt or innocence is now used in law school curriculum as one of the worst miscarriages of justice of all time.
A jurist was asleep during William's giving of evidence (John P. Maddock wrote in about this, he's the man who did the tram time tests), and laughing and chatting. They laughed at Julia's hair being pulled away. Two jurists came forward after and said they had wanted to talk things over properly but had been bullied by the majority into just giving a verdict as there was a football match the people did not want to miss.
One member of the jury was spotted on a tram before the trial began, before having heard evidence, confidently telling his friend "that's him, he did it alright" in reference to a picture of William in a newspaper.
That was the case with the jury. Although the suspiciousness the man cast upon himself made it an easy decision for someone who does not care about reasonable doubt.
...
Absence of knowing of any others does not mean it must be someone we know. You can thank the incompetent police for this. They did not bother to do their jobs right.
If they did, every member of the chess club would be interviewed, Julia's church friends would be interviewed (information about the husband's controlling nature would not only suddenly come out a century later via an email to Antony Brown), they didn't even interview all the people William listed...
Sarah Draper said Julia admitted several guests into the parlour while she worked there. This wasn't chased.
Anyone who knew the woman could have been let in that night. Someone posing as Mr. Qualtrough could potentially get into the parlour but I don't think it's as elaborate as that.
I gave one possible scenario in which someone who knew her has gone in asking to borrow money, been refused, then just hit her and taken the jackpot amd fled. I think if William is innocent when he arrived home someone was in the house... Considering the cash box replacement a shorter man would be a better pick as they could ransack it while standing on something like the sideboard, and would be less likely then to actually take it down... Conversely William has taken it down, then made the conscious effort to put it back up despite trying to stage a robbery. He is tall enough to reach it.
IMO the person replaced things because they did not want the Wallaces to know they'd been burgled right away. The more elapsed time, especially overnight, the more a person can argue that someone found a way in during the night. Apparently, at 17 Wolverton precisely one month earlier a cash container had been ransacked and the container replaced. This is not like the request for money scenario I presented as a hypothetical.
If you hypothetically consider the husband is innocent then the thumps heard by Florence were probably the killer. This is perhaps why they even came out and are lying about the daughter excuse. It's hard to buy nobody in that house heard ANYTHING. REGARDLESS of the perpetrator. Then, again, if he is hypothetically innocent I think he was right about the door. Maybe it stuck but I tend to think he got it right.
I do not think hitmen ideas are as good for the aforementioned reason of where the woman is in the room if he is still there at this time, but specifically gentle knocking could be trying to alert the person William knows to be in the house that he is back etc. Presumably much earlier than arranged because Crewe was unexpectedly out at the cinema. Gentle is important because it suggests he does NOT want to rouse neighbours.
Comment