I'd like to guess at the possible order of events that may have occured on the murder night at number 29, and in doing so, some of the following elements contradict the ideas already posted above. I've done it this way, just to float some more/alternative ideas. ("We all have ideas." WHW.) Again, I've used Rod Stringer's existing 2008 distraction burglary theory as a framework in which to work from.
Two were admitted to the house (using the Qualtrough pretext ruse), and were shown in to the parlour. One of them asked to use the outside lavatory, leaving the other behind to effectively keep her in that room, or to make her return to it fairly promptly, so as to not leave the other alone in that room for too long. (I am assuming however that it is possible to use the outside lavatory during the hours after sunset.)
Once the person finished "using" the loo, he unbolts the back yard gate, allowing an extra intruder in to the yard, then promptly returns to the parlour, with the extra intruder staying behind in the kitchen. (This assumes that Julia is not hanging around by the kitchen door waiting for the first person to finish using the loo, leaving the other person unattended in the parlour. If Julia does do this however, then a workaround might be that the extra intruder has a duplicate key to use on the kitchen door, which is all too convenient I know! (I have an alternative idea about the use of a duplicate key, posted further down, which I hope is less weak, and it involves Mr Johnston.)
The extra intruder attempts to rob the cash box by stealth, but fails to do this quietly, and Julia is alerted to the sound of the thief accidentally breaking the cabinet door. (Might this noise take sufficient precedent over the sound of two coins hitting the floor?) The extra intruder then flees with the money from the cashbox, not showing his face but immediately exiting via the kitchen door, and out through the back yard gate. A discussion ensues between Julia and the initial two visitors as to what may have happened (the only obvious problematic sign being the broken cabinet door; I am assuming she misses or perhaps momentarily ignores the two coins on the floor), and given this situation, Julia musters up the courage to tell them both to leave. The visitors comply; they are not armed at that point (with a weapon having a large headed surface).
Julia flicks the safety latch on the front door for good measure after shooing the pair away, then gets William's mac, puts it around her shoulders, and goes out in to the cold yard to bolt the back gate, but still feeling the cold, keeps the mac on as she goes back to the parlour to gather her thoughts, before starting to turn things off in there. (At this point in time, the back gate is bolted, and the front door has its safety catch on, giving Julia a bit more piece of mind. She anticipates William's return soon, say within the next half an hour. I am assuming that the kitchen door has not been re-bolted however. Perhaps Julia was distracted by the sight of the broken cabinet door? Also, Julia may have decided to leave the evidence untouched, for the half an hour wait, to show William exactly what has occured.)
Somewhere outside, a discussion ensues among the failed thieves, and it is decided that one should return to the house, to "sort things out". Maybe the person who "draws the short straw" to do this is the bungling person who did not show their face to Julia? That person finds the back gate bolted though, and perhaps with the fortitude of having drunk some alcohol beforehand (which may have caused the failed robbery), audaciously enters the yard via an unbolted neighbouring back gate on that street, and scales over the yard wall(s) to get to the yard of number 29. (In a desire to "sort things out", and to make amends for fouling up the burglary, he takes some audacious/assertive risks.) I read that the window cleaner/s were able to move their ladders from one yard to another over the dividing yard walls. I am making an assumption that it is possible for someone to also move themselves over these dividing walls too.
Once in the yard of number 29, the intruder may have unlocked the kitchen door using a duplicate key. (All too convenient I know!
The intruder then goes in to the parlour and attacks Julia by surprise, who is situated kneeling down to the right of the fire, and has begun to turn things off in there. It's been noted that an attack on Julia would not likely have occured in the parlour when she was kneeling down to attend to the fire, because it was customary to light the fire first, and then to draw the blinds afterwards, and so an attack at that stage would be somewhat visible to the outside street through the net curtains on the front window, and consequently too risky/rushed. But what if the fire was being attended to, in order to put it out? The blinds would be closed at that point, and an attack would then be possible, without it being seen from the outside. (An alternative and simpler theory/idea would be that a lone guest simply waited for this convenient situation to arise, and strike then.)In the John Bull article, William suggests that when Julia was first struck, the gas fire had just been lit, and the gas flow had not been regulated. However, Mr Gannon suggests in his book that the fire had been on for a while, and also, I believe that there is forensic evidence on Julia's skirt to indicate that the ceramic component of the fireplace which came in to contact with the skirt was very hot (and so the fireplace had been on for a while). Could it be that the specific looking scorch marks on Julia's skirt were as a result of the skirt material momentarily pressing quite hard against a very hot but unlit part of the fireplace? If the gas fire was on, unregulated, and had just been lit, would that cause a different/more of a messy indistinct looking burn mark on the skirt, rather than distinct looking scorch marks that were discovered? (I have no idea. I'm just floating this as a minor idea for the purposes of debate.)
Following on from the idea above that the fireplace was very hot and had just that moment been put out, what about the unblemished underskirt? As there were no burn marks on it, would that be indicative of the fire having no flame, just very powerful heat, which might not cause scorch or burn marks to appear on it? How about the mac's waterproof coating material? Might it just melt rather than burn in this situation? Could that explain why the room wasn't filled with smoke and tiny particles of burnt macintosh?
Say if you have an initial powerful strike to the back of the head (on the left side), with evidence suggesting that the fireplace was hot, would a worthwhile scenario to consider be that Julia was kneeling down next to it to put it out? Macfall noted that the first blow was struck with terrific force, causing a terrible injury. If Julia had been pushed/shoved first, and then struck, would the attacker be essentially dealing with a moving target, and be less likely to inflict that kind of terrible injury? Might that kind of injury be more likely to occur if the target (head) wasn't moving? (Again, this is just conjecture for debate.) When dealing with the fire in terms of shutting it off, Julia may have been unable at that point to detect/react to rapid footfalls on the hearth rug of an approaching attacker.
During the trial, Mr Justice Wright favoured a scenario in which Julia was kneeling down to attend to the fire when first struck (but this was assumed to be to light it). He favoured this scenario to that of Macfall's idea that Julia was sitting to the left of the fireplace. Mr Russell mentions in his book that a "considerable quantity of brain matter" was discovered in the right hand side of the room.
End of post 2, post 3 follows...
Leave a comment: