Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

No it’s not wrong to suggest it of course. The problem is when you suggest this point over the unbelievably risky notion of burning clothes. If William had had a couple of hours to spare either before leaving or after he’d returned I’d say yes, why not. But with zero chance to check or to act if things didn’t go to plan, like the fire burning itself out before the job was done, or that he missed something in the ashes that the police later found.

It's something commonly done. Whether right or wrong, with or without time to check things burn fully, murderers OFTEN attempt to incinerate evidence.

In some cases they actually set a fake house fire to make it look like the victim died in a blaze while asleep or something. They just set the fire and leave.

It's extremely common.

Just put yourself in these shoes:

You're going to kill your wife, you decide the best way is to shield yourself using your own jacket so you can leave impossibly soon after the milk boy comes (a boy you will never mention and who only comes forward by luck), and then after doing so you plan to dump it with the body and leave.

Does this to you sound like a safe plan? Is this what you would do?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you might be wrong again by the way. It was a minute and a half after the light went up in the middle bedroom that he came outside according to John.

He called out to his wife at what John believes would be the top of the stairs, lit the light, then came out about a minute and a half later saying she's been killed. Florence's testimony is quite long but John's was easy to find so you might just be wrong again. This will need to be fact checked but there's a chance you're just wrong.

If not the weirdly long time could be time for fake robbery staging IMO. But on a preliminary scan it appears you're possibly wrong again so please show me what you refer to.

Wrong again? Where was I wrong the first time?

~~~

Walsh: Did you notice anything else?

Johnston: Yes, just after he called out the light was turned on in the middle bedroom.

The Wright asked Johnston how long it was after the match had been struck in the back room before William came out. Johnston said 1.5 minutes. Then...

Wright: Can you give any idea how long it was that he called out twice after he went into the house....

Johnston: It would take about the same time, my Lord.

Wright: Then I will say “after about a minute and a half.”

So he called out after 1.5 mins, then the light went on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi folks,

On the basis that Wallace did kill Julia, a couple of points on whether or not it would have been a good idea for him to try and destroy his mackintosh by burning it:

1. If any part of the mack had survived burning, Wallace would have been in very deep trouble as there's no reason anyone else would have done that. I think that's accepted although WWH is satisfied the mack would have been completely destroyed. Like others here, I'm not so sure that could be relied upon. I suspect the usually meticulous Wallace would have been of the same cautious view. Furthermore, it's not as if Wallace could have tried out burning macks at home to see how it went!

2. Even if it had been completely destroyed by fire, the police would surely have worked out that Wallace's mack was missing. After all, he wore it earlier in the day for his work visits. That would then prompt the police to probe where it was and, more importantly, who had got rid of it and why. Would anyone other than Wallace have a reason?

Best regards,
OneRound

Excellent point OneRound

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Attempting to destroy evidence of bloodstained clothing, particularly by burning, is extremely common. I think this is why the prosecution also suggested he may have purposefully attempted to incinerate it.

And criminals have been caught because investigators have fished out items from ashes that haven’t burned.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Wrong again? Where was I wrong the first time?

~~~

Walsh: Did you notice anything else?

Johnston: Yes, just after he called out the light was turned on in the middle bedroom.

The Wright asked Johnston how long it was after the match had been struck in the back room before William came out. Johnston said 1.5 minutes. Then...

Wright: Can you give any idea how long it was that he called out twice after he went into the house....

Johnston: It would take about the same time, my Lord.

Wright: Then I will say “after about a minute and a half.”

So he called out after 1.5 mins, then the light went on.

Okay so I see what is said here as I checked the quote, is that it was a minute and a half at the most. Admittedly this is obviously pure guesstimating.

The prosecutor correctly identifies that it is of course only a very rough idea, and asks if Johnston means a short time.

Yes, a short time. Answers Mr. Johnston.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another reason that William might have chosen that particular coat was because of its purpose. To keep the wearer dry. We know that Julia didn’t own a mackintosh and so her coats might have been absorbent. Would William have wanted to used a coat were blood might have soaked through getting blood on him?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Another reason that William might have chosen that particular coat was because of its purpose. To keep the wearer dry. We know that Julia didn’t own a mackintosh and so her coats might have been absorbent. Would William have wanted to used a coat were blood might have soaked through getting blood on him?

Yes that would be possible. Not sure if it's the likeliest explanation though.

I know why you say Julia didn't own a mackintosh, I'm trying to find the same section in the full trial.

We must not forget the jacket was first seen by William on his own. We do not know if it had been in a fire that was set quite purposefully. Albeit probability suggests a relationship between the skirt and jacket burns.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Okay it looks like what he actually says is his wife had never worn THE mackintosh, as opposed to A mackintosh.

With that said it should be known it was never said she did not own a mackintosh. The point you make is something I said some time back which is why I know what you refer to - I thought he had said never worn a mackintosh (meaning it possible she did not own one - not proof she didn't, but suggestive).

You would expect her to have SOME sort of waterproof jacket if not Mackintosh branded (though I know we at least in modern times use the term mack or mackintosh colloquially to refer to any waterproof jacket). I think everyone owns something like that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Failure to mention Alan means he does not view Alan as vital = his alibi in his mind does not rest on beating the clock by killing her and getting out in an impossibly short time frame after the milk boy comes.

But if William had known that Close had been (which is close to a certainty) and that he had been between 6.30 and 6.35 William wouldn’t have wanted to mention this because he would have known that the police would check the timings for his journey and so the earlier Close came (seeing Julia alive) the longer the window that the police would have had for William to have killed Julia. Of course William had no control over whether Close would come forward or not. He couldn’t have claimed to have left the house at say 6.30 because he would have risked the Belmont Road tram conductor seeing him (with the police rightly asking William how it took over 20 minutes to walk 500 yards?) And of course he couldn’t shorten the window by saying that Close came at 6.45 if he hadn’t.

So William can’t use Close as an alibi but he has to consider his appearance because he’d have to have killed Julia after he’d gone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's something commonly done. Whether right or wrong, with or without time to check things burn fully, murderers OFTEN attempt to incinerate evidence.

In some cases they actually set a fake house fire to make it look like the victim died in a blaze while asleep or something. They just set the fire and leave.

It's extremely common.

Just put yourself in these shoes:

You're going to kill your wife, you decide the best way is to shield yourself using your own jacket so you can leave impossibly soon after the milk boy comes (a boy you will never mention and who only comes forward by luck), and then after doing so you plan to dump it with the body and leave.

Does this to you sound like a safe plan? Is this what you would do?

Not if it was in a park somewhere no. But in a house yes. The coat belonged in the house. The woman of the house at that time was responsible for the clothing so she could have had any number of reasons for carrying it.

The point is this - if William had decided to kill his wife and use something to protect himself from blood what options did he have?

Im absolutely certain that burning would have been out of the question. An insane risk. The slightest scrap found in the ashes, which isn’t at all unlikely, and William is dead. And there would be no alternative explanations by the defence. So William would have been playing Russian Roulette.

The other question then is “what else could he have used which he could have left to be discovered by the police?”

You've admitted that things like towels or sheets would have been out of the question so it had to be something that might have had an at least plausible reason for being in the Parlour being handled by Julia.

So an item of clothing...

It had to be something large of course for the 6”2” William. So a shirt or jacket or a waist length coat are all out. And because of the point that you’re making and because there are only two people in the house it had to be something of Julia’s.

The only thing potentially large enough would have been a coat belonging to Julia. Now of course we know little about coats that Julia owned except that she didn’t own a mackintosh (which begs the question about why Florence said that he’d said - her mackintosh and my mackintosh but that’s another issue) We know that a mackintosh is for keeping liquid out. What if Julia’s coats, however many she had (hardly a lady of fashion) were of the kind of material through which blood would have soaked? Useless for William’s purpose.

So we have a man, decided upon a method, potentially very restricted on what was available to him, having to weigh things up. And realising that his coat being in the room doesn’t automatically mean guilt as alternative explanations would be easily available for the defence, might have decided that it was preferable to the risks of burning.

ps. If memory serves Julia also had a fur coat which, after her death, her sister asked William to send to her. The fact that Julia appeared estranged from her family might have held some clues if we knew more.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay so I see what is said here as I checked the quote, is that it was a minute and a half at the most. Admittedly this is obviously pure guesstimating.

The prosecutor correctly identifies that it is of course only a very rough idea, and asks if Johnston means a short time.

Yes, a short time. Answers Mr. Johnston.

But it’s worth mentioning that Florence said 2-3 minutes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay it looks like what he actually says is his wife had never worn THE mackintosh, as opposed to A mackintosh.

With that said it should be known it was never said she did not own a mackintosh. The point you make is something I said some time back which is why I know what you refer to - I thought he had said never worn a mackintosh (meaning it possible she did not own one - not proof she didn't, but suggestive).

You would expect her to have SOME sort of waterproof jacket if not Mackintosh branded (though I know we at least in modern times use the term mack or mackintosh colloquially to refer to any waterproof jacket). I think everyone owns something like that.

I did mean to mention this a few days ago in response to the suggestion that Julia had worn the mackintosh. If it something that she was in the habit of doing you’d have thought that William would have seen her do it at least once in 18 years.

[WallaceWackedHer]

But if William had known that Close had been (which is close to a certainty) and that he had been between 6.30 and 6.35 William wouldn’t have wanted to mention this because he would have known that the police would check the timings for his journey and so the earlier Close came (seeing Julia alive) the longer the window that the police would have had for William to have killed Julia. Of course William had no control over whether Close would come forward or not. He couldn’t have claimed to have left the house at say 6.30 because he would have risked the Belmont Road tram conductor seeing him (with the police rightly asking William how it took over 20 minutes to walk 500 yards?) And of course he couldn’t shorten the window by saying that Close came at 6.45 if he hadn’t.

So William can’t use Close as an alibi but he has to consider his appearance because he’d have to have killed Julia after he’d gone.

Yes that's what I mean, so his alibi isn't reliant on trying to impress upon people that he has an impossible frame of time in which to act.

But you're missing the point still, that if he DOESN'T mention Alan then for all the police know his wife's been lying there dead since around 6 PM. So yeah to not try to shorten the window of opportunity at all, I just don't think it crossed his mind.

He can't leave until Alan comes but that's all he's thinking, not about using the boy to provide himself an alibi.

And tbh he absolutely could have said he left his house at "about 6.40" if his 6.45 is actually bang on accurate. Simply because if it were me I'd know I can't be called a liar for getting the time off by 5 minutes. But that's what would occur to someone trying to beat the clock. Which I think we can show is not the basis for the alibi.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Not if it was in a park somewhere no. But in a house yes. The coat belonged in the house. The woman of the house at that time was responsible for the clothing so she could have had any number of reasons for carrying it.

The point is this - if William had decided to kill his wife and use something to protect himself from blood what options did he have?

Im absolutely certain that burning would have been out of the question. An insane risk. The slightest scrap found in the ashes, which isn’t at all unlikely, and William is dead. And there would be no alternative explanations by the defence. So William would have been playing Russian Roulette.

The other question then is “what else could he have used which he could have left to be discovered by the police?”

You've admitted that things like towels or sheets would have been out of the question so it had to be something that might have had an at least plausible reason for being in the Parlour being handled by Julia.

So an item of clothing...

It had to be something large of course for the 6”2” William. So a shirt or jacket or a waist length coat are all out. And because of the point that you’re making and because there are only two people in the house it had to be something of Julia’s.

The only thing potentially large enough would have been a coat belonging to Julia. Now of course we know little about coats that Julia owned except that she didn’t own a mackintosh (which begs the question about why Florence said that he’d said - her mackintosh and my mackintosh but that’s another issue) We know that a mackintosh is for keeping liquid out. What if Julia’s coats, however many she had (hardly a lady of fashion) were of the kind of material through which blood would have soaked? Useless for William’s purpose.

So we have a man, decided upon a method, potentially very restricted on what was available to him, having to weigh things up. And realising that his coat being in the room doesn’t automatically mean guilt as alternative explanations would be easily available for the defence, might have decided that it was preferable to the risks of burning.

ps. If memory serves Julia also had a fur coat which, after her death, her sister asked William to send to her. The fact that Julia appeared estranged from her family might have held some clues if we knew more.

We don't know that Julia didn't own a mackintosh, this is false information that I myself seem to have propogated by misreading "the" as "a" in a particular quote. I should rectify that. I have made many factual errors before because I get very excited when I find something and tend to not check as thoroughly as I should before posting.

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.

Wearing the jacket works best for the prosecution's argument.

In either case if I were to premeditate any sort of crime like this - I know that I wouldn't for even a second want to leave anything identifiable as being my own that I'd used with the body. I don't think anybody would. I would try to do anything else with it apart from that.

I'd probably have tried burning all my clothes so you have essentially taught me something important if I ever want to get away with murder lol...

In my mind this plan would be a no go. If I'm to avoid blood spray I either use something belonging to her (if I'm to leave it with the body) or I would have to go back to the drawing board. Personally I would probably throw one of her coats over her head and then hit - which should completely prevent spray. Then I would dash blood up the walls to confuse forensics. If it was modern times I'm not sure I'd try that trick but back in the 30s probably.

Another thing I might do is buy a jacket at some thrift store or carboot sale quite some time earlier and burn that. There's a chance of the store owner mentioning it but I know I could not entertain any plan that's both heavily reliant on luck (luck that no microscopic spray gets on me) and self incriminating by the leaving of items at the scene.