Announcement

**John G** · 06-27-2020, 05:53 PM

Thanks for the comprehensive update, very interesting and I will spend some time digesting the information.

Just one or two observations. I've always been a bit sceptical about the iron bar supposedly discovered in the crevice. As I understand it, this is dependent on an uncorroborated account given to Goodman. Moreover, didn't the police remove and dismantle the fire?

Regarding, the burned coat. It's clearly a mystery how this happened, and it's certainly not going to happen if the assailant used the Mac as a shield, i.e. because in these circumstances either his, or Julia's body would be between the mac and the fire-unless there was some sort of dynamic struggle, where William was chasing Julia around the room, but that seems totally far fetched.

During the trial, it was suggested that Julia might have thrown the coat over her shoulders to go to the
door, and was then struck when she had it on. Do your experts regard this has a plausible theory?

**WallaceWackedHer** · 06-27-2020, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by John G View Post

Thanks for the comprehensive update, very interesting and I will spend some time digesting the information.

Just one or two observations. I've always been a bit sceptical about the iron bar supposedly discovered in the crevice. As I understand it, this is dependent on an uncorroborated account given to Goodman. Moreover, didn't the police remove and dismantle the fire?

Regarding, the burned coat. It's clearly a mystery how this happened, and it's certainly not going to happen if the assailant used the Mac as a shield, i.e. because in these circumstances either his, or Julia's body would be between the mac and the fire-unless there was some sort of dynamic struggle, where William was chasing Julia around the room, but that seems totally far fetched.

During the trial, it was suggested that Julia might have thrown the coat over her shoulders to go to the
door, and was then struck when she had it on. Do your experts regard this has a plausible theory?

1) The thing about the bar is that it was down a crevice at the back against the wall which it was prised up from. So even with the removal of the gas fire it's possible it was missed.

Goodman said several officers corroborated the story to him.

2) Wallace's John Bull article has the assailant hold it as a shield after the first strike. It wouldn't work but it's possible someone attempted such a trick nontheless.

3) They agree with the idea of it being round her shoulders. Importantly it was also the immediate impression of Florence Johnston who is one of the only witnesses to see the original position of the jacket.

The police lied about moving it, they used the excuse the photographer must have "caught his foot on it" to move it. But we all know it was held up etc.

The idea of Wallace having done this himself has been heavily discredited by forensics. The idea he used the jacket in the manner described (as a shield) was termed "absurd" by this current expert.

Wearing it would work better but even still, and this was conceded by McFall, it would not completely protect the assailant. There would be blood upon his face, hair, hands (unless he wore gloves), lower trouser leg, ankles, and according to one of the experts also on the sleeves if blood had sprayed up inside the opening in the cuff.

However, answering a knock at the door which seems to be supported by the mug of tea on the kitchen fireplace (placed there to keep warm when answering an unexpected knock I suppose) does not rule out a hit job.

...

If the iron bar was used I am convinced this was not a planned murder. I do not see any killer arriving to murder this woman without bringing their own implement. I am also surprised she even got as far as lighting the fire in such a case - the attacker would have surely had ample time to strike before this, I'm sure Julia would have first lit the lamps above the fire before lighting the fire - both lamps if Wallace is truthful that they lit both when a visitor came - but it's possible.

But it seems possible nothing at all was missing from the home.

IF the iron bar was still there, I do not see why Julia would have brought the poker in. It may have been placed by police for photos to simulate its position but I have not seen this stated anywhere.

To my mind the iron bar is in the crevice or simply missing and had been since before the day of the killing, and that is why the little poker is there - as a substitute for cleaning purposes.

The house was rather cluttered though... As mentioned Wallace stated items as missing which were found like the wood chopper, so the notion something WAS taken but not noticed must not be ruled out. If not for Draper the fact the bar of iron was not there would not even be known to anyone.

**John G** · 06-27-2020, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

1) The thing about the bar is that it was down a crevice at the back against the wall which it was prised up from. So even with the removal of the gas fire it's possible it was missed.

Goodman said several officers corroborated the story to him.

2) Wallace's John Bull article has the assailant hold it as a shield after the first strike. It wouldn't work but it's possible someone attempted such a trick nontheless.

3) They agree with the idea of it being round her shoulders. Importantly it was also the immediate impression of Florence Johnston who is one of the only witnesses to see the original position of the jacket.

The police lied about moving it, they used the excuse the photographer must have "caught his foot on it" to move it. But we all know it was held up etc.

The idea of Wallace having done this himself has been heavily discredited by forensics. The idea he used the jacket in the manner described (as a shield) was termed "absurd" by this current expert.

Wearing it would work better but even still, and this was conceded by McFall, it would not completely protect the assailant. There would be blood upon his face, hair, hands (unless he wore gloves), lower trouser leg, ankles, and according to one of the experts also on the sleeves if blood had sprayed up inside the opening in the cuff.

However, answering a knock at the door which seems to be supported by the mug of tea on the kitchen fireplace (placed there to keep warm when answering an unexpected knock I suppose) does not rule out a hit job.

...

If the iron bar was used I am convinced this was not a planned murder. I do not see any killer arriving to murder this woman without bringing their own implement. I am also surprised she even got as far as lighting the fire in such a case - the attacker would have surely had ample time to strike before this, I'm sure Julia would have first lit the lamps above the fire before lighting the fire - both lamps if Wallace is truthful that they lit both when a visitor came - but it's possible.

But it seems possible nothing at all was missing from the home.

IF the iron bar was still there, I do not see why Julia would have brought the poker in. It may have been placed by police for photos to simulate its position but I have not seen this stated anywhere.

To my mind the iron bar is in the crevice or simply missing and had been since before the day of the killing, and that is why the little poker is there - as a substitute for cleaning purposes.

The house was rather cluttered though... As mentioned Wallace stated items as missing which were found like the wood chopper, so the notion something WAS taken but not noticed must not be ruled out. If not for Draper the fact the bar of iron was not there would not even be known to anyone.

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. It's interesting that your experts accept that the coat could have been around Julia's shoulders; that is my preferred theory, and the one that best explains how the Mac was burnt.

Regarding, the iron bar found in the crevice: if this was the murder weapon wouldn't it still be caked in dried blood, i.e when it was discovered? I'm assuming this was not the case as Goodman doesn't mention it.

**Al Bundy's Eyes** · 06-27-2020, 07:34 PM

Sterling work as usual Wallace.

**WallaceWackedHer** · 06-27-2020, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by John G View Post

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. It's interesting that your experts accept that the coat could have been around Julia's shoulders; that is my preferred theory, and the one that best explains how the Mac was burnt.

Regarding, the iron bar found in the crevice: if this was the murder weapon wouldn't it still be caked in dried blood, i.e when it was discovered? I'm assuming this was not the case as Goodman doesn't mention it.

Yes although the builder wiped it because it was dusty. But I'm contending if the bar is there it's NOT the murder weapon.

And we see what seems to be the poker there in the fender.

So in such case I'd suggest neither to be the weapon. Rather the iron bar rolled down the back into the crevice before the day of the murder and Julia used a poker from the living kitchen as a replacement for it to clean while the charwoman was on leave.

Possibly the killer had brought his own implement of murder, or something else in the home not reported missing or unfound (e.g. the dog lash with the handle) had been used.

I would expect a man going in with possible intent to murder to carry his own weapon. I'd expect it to be small and concealable like a hammer, and he would then take that away.

Rather than the attack definitely being frenzy etc. I see another possibility the killer was not satisfied she was dead until her skull had been opened up which may have taken a number of hits, as we see the marks on the back of her head are significant yet superficial to the naked eye and I can't see someone changing weapons midway through an attack.

**John G** · 06-28-2020, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

Yes although the builder wiped it because it was dusty. But I'm contending if the bar is there it's NOT the murder weapon.

And we see what seems to be the poker there in the fender.

So in such case I'd suggest neither to be the weapon. Rather the iron bar rolled down the back into the crevice before the day of the murder and Julia used a poker from the living kitchen as a replacement for it to clean while the charwoman was on leave.

Possibly the killer had brought his own implement of murder, or something else in the home not reported missing or unfound (e.g. the dog lash with the handle) had been used.

I would expect a man going in with possible intent to murder to carry his own weapon. I'd expect it to be small and concealable like a hammer, and he would then take that away.

Rather than the attack definitely being frenzy etc. I see another possibility the killer was not satisfied she was dead until her skull had been opened up which may have taken a number of hits, as we see the marks on the back of her head are significant yet superficial to the naked eye and I can't see someone changing weapons midway through an attack.

Yes, I agree. The bar makes no sense as a murder weapon, and a poker was still present, so it couldn't have been that.

Thus, from the perspective of a killer other than Wallace, why use the bar? To begin with, they would risk getting caught when it was initially removed-it had been missing for some time. Moreover, why try and hide it on the premises, where it might have been discovered, rather than simply taking it with them when they left, and then disposing of it in a more secure location. Moreover, Sarah Draper doesn't actually describe it as a bar, she refers to a "piece of iron", so as a murder weapon it could have been cumbersome to wield.

From Wallace's perspective, he could simply have used a household implement, such as the poker, which he wouldn't have needed to remove or hide: when his fingerprints were found on it he simply says, "of course they are, it's my poker, I've used hundreds of times!" He could then argue that the actual perpetrator must have used gloves. Or with any luck, Parry may have used it during his many visits, thus potentially implicating him.

**WallaceWackedHer** · 06-28-2020, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by John G View Post

Yes, I agree. The bar makes no sense as a murder weapon, and a poker was still present, so it couldn't have been that.

Thus, from the perspective of a killer other than Wallace, why use the bar? To begin with, they would risk getting caught when it was initially removed-it had been missing for some time. Moreover, why try and hide it on the premises, where it might have been discovered, rather than simply taking it with them when they left, and then disposing of it in a more secure location. Moreover, Sarah Draper doesn't actually describe it as a bar, she refers to a "piece of iron", so as a murder weapon it could have been cumbersome to wield.

From Wallace's perspective, he could simply have used a household implement, such as the poker, which he wouldn't have needed to remove or hide: when his fingerprints were found on it he simply says, "of course they are, it's my poker, I've used hundreds of times!" He could then argue that the actual perpetrator must have used gloves. Or with any luck, Parry may have used it during his many visits, thus potentially implicating him.

An item from the home may have been grabbed by a killer during an unplanned attack, i.e. in the case it is something like a distraction robbery scenario where the attack was unforeseen.

The piece of iron referenced was straight and relatively small. Desribed as 12" by 1". Enough to do the damage but it appears to have been present, just lost behind the fireplace by the day of the murder.

The bar could potentially have been wrapped in the jacket or any fabric although I am told if the jacket had been on Julia's head during any of the hits there would likely be damage to the material, I imagine hiding whatever you killed the woman with to be beneficial in any case.

Any killer who had touched something from the house without gloves would be forced to take that with him e.g. if it had been the iron bar.

There were two pokers the larger of which was still in the living kitchen when Draper arrived. The other poker appears to be present there by the fire.

With all three things present the only item confirmed missing is the dog lash but Wallace claimed it hadn't been seen for 12 months (along with something else like a wood chopper they found under the stairs). So it goes to an item brought by the attacker or an item nobody knew was missing or which was protected during the attack by fabric or something.

An item being brought by the perpetrator is more indicative of a planned attack.

As for the skirt burning I see it noted on trial that it was the bottom part of the skirt whereas Gannon says the groin. I have noted factual errors in Gannon's book however... MAJOR ones which can change the entire opinion of the verdict... So I would cross check every claim... Roland Oliver seems to imply the bottom front.

Another Gannon or Goodman claim is that the burns are from three vertical beams on the gas fire. But there are no such beams? The trial and appeal trial notes consistency with contact with the fireclays which means the top front part (the fake coals on the Sunbeam which is the brand of their fireplace).

Oliver's series of events gains credibility with the new facts. Julia stooping to the fire possibly to the gas tap or having just lit it when struck or shoved. Her skirt going into the main portion of the fire... As one possibility...

More forensic analysis is needed I think. I need to know if Julia was lighting the fire or doing the tap or anything like that.

I also need to know if the lounger was sat on by anyone before the photo was taken. It appears someone had been sitting or reclining there by the set up of the cushions. One is actually shoved down into a little crevice there you'll notice.

You will note what I presume to be her usual seat - the armchair - was not used - which you can tell by the case being across the arms. But there is a chair near the sideboard. I do not expect that was its usual place? But we can ascertain if she had a visitor she probably had just one she admitted. Unless two men sat on the lounger.

Perhaps the attacker was sat on the lounger as Julia did the fire even.

I also need to know the orientation of Julia's head when hit. If she is facing the fire it is at odds with her being threatened or hearing a sound from the kitchen etc. Unless it was a shove

**John G** · 06-28-2020, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

An item from the home may have been grabbed by a killer during an unplanned attack, i.e. in the case it is something like a distraction robbery scenario where the attack was unforeseen.

The piece of iron referenced was straight and relatively small. Desribed as 12" by 1". Enough to do the damage but it appears to have been present, just lost behind the fireplace by the day of the murder.

The bar could potentially have been wrapped in the jacket or any fabric although I am told if the jacket had been on Julia's head during any of the hits there would likely be damage to the material, I imagine hiding whatever you killed the woman with to be beneficial in any case.

Any killer who had touched something from the house without gloves would be forced to take that with him e.g. if it had been the iron bar.

There were two pokers the larger of which was still in the living kitchen when Draper arrived. The other poker appears to be present there by the fire.

With all three things present the only item confirmed missing is the dog lash but Wallace claimed it hadn't been seen for 12 months (along with something else like a wood chopper they found under the stairs). So it goes to an item brought by the attacker or an item nobody knew was missing or which was protected during the attack by fabric or something.

An item being brought by the perpetrator is more indicative of a planned attack.

As for the skirt burning I see it noted on trial that it was the bottom part of the skirt whereas Gannon says the groin. I have noted factual errors in Gannon's book however... MAJOR ones which can change the entire opinion of the verdict... So I would cross check every claim... Roland Oliver seems to imply the bottom front.

Another Gannon or Goodman claim is that the burns are from three vertical beams on the gas fire. But there are no such beams? The trial and appeal trial notes consistency with contact with the fireclays which means the top front part (the fake coals on the Sunbeam which is the brand of their fireplace).

Oliver's series of events gains credibility with the new facts. Julia stooping to the fire possibly to the gas tap or having just lit it when struck or shoved. Her skirt going into the main portion of the fire... As one possibility...

More forensic analysis is needed I think. I need to know if Julia was lighting the fire or doing the tap or anything like that.

I also need to know if the lounger was sat on by anyone before the photo was taken. It appears someone had been sitting or reclining there by the set up of the cushions. One is actually shoved down into a little crevice there you'll notice.

You will note what I presume to be her usual seat - the armchair - was not used - which you can tell by the case being across the arms. But there is a chair near the sideboard. I do not expect that was its usual place? But we can ascertain if she had a visitor she probably had just one she admitted. Unless two men sat on the lounger.

Perhaps the attacker was sat on the lounger as Julia did the fire even.

I also need to know the orientation of Julia's head when hit. If she is facing the fire it is at odds with her being threatened or hearing a sound from the kitchen etc. Unless it was a shove

Thanks. This case is certainly proving to be complicated from a forensic perspective.

There are some interesting exchanges between Roland Oliver and McFall. For example:

Oliver: "Suppose it [the coat] was round her shoulders and she collapsed, do you not see the possibility of the bottom of the mackintosh falling into the fire and getting burned too?"

McFall: "There is the possibility."

Oliver also questioned McFall about the mackintosh being pushed under the shoulders, and whether that would hsve left the assailant "heavily dabbled with bloood", i.e. as the shoulders were lifted up and the mackintosh placed underneath.

The apparent placement of the mackintosh under the body by the assailant certainly seems a strange thing to have done (and a completely crazy thing for Wallace to have done if he was the assailant). I mean, what purpose did it serve? Why take the risk of being covered in blood?

I do wonder if it could have ended up in that position on the basis of Julia draping the coat over her shoulders, i e. as she went to answer the door, before being struck and falling to the ground. I wonder how this works from a forensic perspective.

**WallaceWackedHer** · 06-28-2020, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by John G View Post

Thanks. This case is certainly proving to be complicated from a forensic perspective.

There are some interesting exchanges between Roland Oliver and McFall. For example:

Oliver: "Suppose it [the coat] was round her shoulders and she collapsed, do you not see the possibility of the bottom of the mackintosh falling into the fire and getting burned too?"

McFall: "There is the possibility."

Oliver also questioned McFall about the mackintosh being pushed under the shoulders, and whether that would hsve left the assailant "heavily dabbled with bloood", i.e. as the shoulders were lifted up and the mackintosh placed underneath.

The apparent placement of the mackintosh under the body by the assailant certainly seems a strange thing to have done (and a completely crazy thing for Wallace to have done if he was the assailant). I mean, what purpose did it serve? Why take the risk of being covered in blood?

I do wonder if it could have ended up in that position on the basis of Julia draping the coat over her shoulders, i e. as she went to answer the door, before being struck and falling to the ground. I wonder how this works from a forensic perspective.

I've always felt it was obvious the jacket was thrown down and stamped out and Julia's body was then dumped on top of it. No planned move to have it hidden under her, she just happened to be dumped on top of it in that way.

I've always felt Julia was put on top of the jacket as opposed to the jacket being put under Julia.

For the record this expert wishes to present this case at an AAFS summit in February next year in Houston. They get an hour to present a historic case in front of an audience of experts from around the country.

**John G** · 06-28-2020, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

I've always felt it was obvious the jacket was thrown down and stamped out and Julia's body was then dumped on top of it. No planned move to have it hidden under her, she just happened to be dumped on top of it in that way.

I've always felt Julia was put on top of the jacket as opposed to the jacket being put under Julia.

For the record this expert wishes to present this case at an AAFS summit in February next year in Houston. They get an hour to present a historic case in front of an audience of experts from around the country.

That is, of course, a possible scenario. However, placing Julia's body on top of the coat, thereby handling the heavily bloodstained body, would presumably have left the assailant covered in blood. My question is therefore the same as before: why take such an unnecessary risk, when the coat could simply have been discarded anywhere in the room?

Amazing news about the Houston summit. Please keep us updated, as I would be very interested to hear the expert's forensic analysis.

**WallaceWackedHer** · 06-28-2020, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by John G View Post

That is, of course, a possible scenario. However, placing Julia's body on top of the coat, thereby handling the heavily bloodstained body, would presumably have left the assailant covered in blood. My question is therefore the same as before: why take such an unnecessary risk, when the coat could simply have been discarded anywhere in the room?

Amazing news about the Houston summit. Please keep us updated, as I would be very interested to hear the expert's forensic analysis.

I don't think it went on the coat on purpose and Julia was moved by her hair and cardigan most likely. Her hair was ripped out and there's a tear in the back of her cardigan. There's a bruise on her inner arm on one side too, said to be recent. The blood on Julia's body was on the front.

She's a dead weight. Heavy. I think they've just dropped her down away from the fireplace and it happened to be on the jacket. Maybe chucked her legs out of the fender away from the fire.

We actually know her body to very likely have been moved because she went into the fire apparently and that's not how we find her. Unless those skirt burns are incidental and it doesn't seem so.

Moving her was necessary because her skirt had caught light.

Julia was free of blood on the back of her body which is interesting and maybe telling in some way. Of course it was on the back of her head but Parry we see of Parkes is accurate had one glove. So there's evidence of covered hands involved.

Whoever did this would have been soaked in blood, there's no getting away from it. No clever mac shield would have saved them. Whether it be Wallace or a hitman. They have blood on them.

...

In any case even if this is a hit I heavily question Lily Hall's statement.

I don't see a hitman going in and lingering around with a dead body until some special set meeting time of the argument is that he had already got away and returned to see Wallace. For what purpose could this even be? If the job's done Wallace's going to find out about 20 paces later. And especially - since we know the killer is sprayed with blood - I can't imagine him standing around chatting.

He'd go in, kill her, and get out as soon as possible and be GONE.

Lily Hall's statement changed dramatically over time. Originally she never said she saw the men part. I see a possibility Wallace and a random stranger crossed paths without speaking a word to each other. From the description the other man sounds like a little boy (he was short and had a cap on, juvenile fashion at the time). Maybe nothing to do with this whatsoever.

I would rather buy a hit job without her sighting playing a part.

I ALSO don't see a hitman lingering for the getaway car with an arranged time with GORDON. Seems wholly unnecessary. Any killer as said is going to want to get in, and get out and AWAY as soon as possible and never come back. If Gordon is a getaway driver more likely I see him driving the guy down to a road nearby and waiting at the car. Cars were very rare so you couldn't park close to the road or it'd be obvious... The guy would go in then get out and rush back to the car and they're away.

That's how I'd imagine a hit job going.

No bizarre "okay go in the house, kill my wife in the bloodiest way possible, then stay there - though you don't know if neighbours heard suspicious noises and reported it - and only come out at 8.30ish and then come chat to me in plain view while you're covered in blood and meet Gordon who will come collect you."

How utterly recklessly dangerous for the killer in such a scenario.

**John G** · 06-28-2020, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

I don't think it went on the coat on purpose and Julia was moved by her hair and cardigan most likely. Her hair was ripped out and there's a tear in the back of her cardigan. There's a bruise on her inner arm on one side too, said to be recent. The blood on Julia's body was on the front.

She's a dead weight. Heavy. I think they've just dropped her down away from the fireplace and it happened to be on the jacket. Maybe chucked her legs out of the fender away from the fire.

We actually know her body to very likely have been moved because she went into the fire apparently and that's not how we find her. Unless those skirt burns are incidental and it doesn't seem so.

Moving her was necessary because her skirt had caught light.

Julia was free of blood on the back of her body which is interesting and maybe telling in some way. Of course it was on the back of her head but Parry we see of Parkes is accurate had one glove. So there's evidence of covered hands involved.

Whoever did this would have been soaked in blood, there's no getting away from it. No clever mac shield would have saved them. Whether it be Wallace or a hitman. They have blood on them.

...

In any case even if this is a hit I heavily question Lily Hall's statement.

I don't see a hitman going in and lingering around with a dead body until some special set meeting time of the argument is that he had already got away and returned to see Wallace. For what purpose could this even be? If the job's done Wallace's going to find out about 20 paces later. And especially - since we know the killer is sprayed with blood - I can't imagine him standing around chatting.

He'd go in, kill her, and get out as soon as possible and be GONE.

Lily Hall's statement changed dramatically over time. Originally she never said she saw the men part. I see a possibility Wallace and a random stranger crossed paths without speaking a word to each other. From the description the other man sounds like a little boy (he was short and had a cap on, juvenile fashion at the time). Maybe nothing to do with this whatsoever.

I would rather buy a hit job without her sighting playing a part.

I ALSO don't see a hitman lingering for the getaway car with an arranged time with GORDON. Seems wholly unnecessary. Any killer as said is going to want to get in, and get out and AWAY as soon as possible and never come back. If Gordon is a getaway driver more likely I see him driving the guy down to a road nearby and waiting at the car. Cars were very rare so you couldn't park close to the road or it'd be obvious... The guy would go in then get out and rush back to the car and they're away.

That's how I'd imagine a hit job going.

No bizarre "okay go in the house, kill my wife in the bloodiest way possible, then stay there - though you don't know if neighbours heard suspicious noises and reported it - and only come out at 8.30ish and then come chat to me in plain view while you're covered in blood and meet Gordon who will come collect you."

How utterly recklessly dangerous for the killer in such a scenario.

Yes, fair points, particularly about the hair being ripped and the cardigan torn, which I was unaware of.

It also appears that the body had been moved by the police prior to the photo being taken. Mr Johnstone, under oath at the trial, was asked to look at the photographs. He remarked, when asked, "Is that how she was lying?" "No, she was not like that when I went in; there was no mackintosh when I was there."

Mrs Johnstone commented, " It [the mackintosh] was almost hidden under the body, you see."

She subsequently agreed with Roland Oliver that Julia may have thrown the mackintosh over her shoulders to answer the door.

I agree that Lily Hall's statement is questionable, particularly as it's difficult to imagine a scenario in which Wallace, who seemed to have few if any close friends, would conspire with anyone. Put simply, who exactly would he have been prepared to trust?

**WallaceWackedHer** · 06-29-2020, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by John G View Post

Yes, fair points, particularly about the hair being ripped and the cardigan torn, which I was unaware of.

It also appears that the body had been moved by the police prior to the photo being taken. Mr Johnstone, under oath at the trial, was asked to look at the photographs. He remarked, when asked, "Is that how she was lying?" "No, she was not like that when I went in; there was no mackintosh when I was there."

Mrs Johnstone commented, " It [the mackintosh] was almost hidden under the body, you see."

She subsequently agreed with Roland Oliver that Julia may have thrown the mackintosh over her shoulders to answer the door.

I agree that Lily Hall's statement is questionable, particularly as it's difficult to imagine a scenario in which Wallace, who seemed to have few if any close friends, would conspire with anyone. Put simply, who exactly would he have been prepared to trust?

As far as I know the difference in the body position is just that one of the arms was hidden beneath the body when found.

Gannon is seemingly wrong again by the way. That's Julia's left arm (the window side arm) under her body unless she was found on her back. That would be huge if so... If she's face down however that's her left arm on the window side which seems depicted under her body, the right arm (armchair side) over her.

What a strange contorted position. Her arm over her back? I ought to fact check this. If she was found on her back that's another massive turn of events.

As for who he could trust it depends on the motive. There are several reports he was a gay man, which was something very serious back then; you could even do prison time for being gay. Julia was devoutly religious, she would not likely be very liberal about the idea of a gay husband.

**WallaceWackedHer** · 06-29-2020, 04:32 AM

her body thus adopting the position in which she was originally found by Wallace and the Johnstons: on her side; her right arm hidden underneath her body, her left arm resting across her chest and feet on their sides, slightly apart, toes pointing to the window.

Oh that's quite major... I need to think on this.

Announcement

Wallace Case - Latest major breakthrough (27th June 2020)

Wallace Case - Latest major breakthrough (27th June 2020)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment