** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it does make it less likely because there is no evidence that the fire was on when Close called. I'm making the assumption that Close called at 6:40pm and not 6:30pm (which can be disputed, of course, but I think the preponderance of evidence supports that). However, I also think the opposite is true: if the mackintosh would only ignite with an unregulated flame then this would suggest the fire had only just been lit, pointing to a premeditated murder i.e. Julia was killed almost as soon as she entered the parlour.

For me, then, a fire test would have probative value. More generally, I think it is important (following philosopher Karl Popper) to understand what evidence (if we had it) would falsify (or point away) from your own favoured theory. I think a fire test would give us a significant pointer - although I realise it is not going to happen!

Do you think it’s strange that there was no mark on Julia’s underskirt that corresponded to the hole burnt through on her skirt? It might be nothing of course.

[ColdCaseJury]

Do you think it’s strange that there was no mark on Julia’s underskirt that corresponded to the hole burnt through on her skirt? It might be nothing of course.

Like your reference to The Second Stain. I confess I cannot remember the exact description of the skirt burns. I thought it was scorched, making three parallel lines rather than burnt through. If it was an actual hole (let say at least 1cm in diameter) in the material then, yes, you would expect a matching burn mark on the underwear. If the former is correct, however, it suggests the skirt came in contact with a hot fire surround (the Sunbeam had vertical bars at its bottom).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Like your reference to The Second Stain. I confess I cannot remember the exact description of the skirt burns. I thought it was scorched, making three parallel lines rather than burnt through. If it was an actual hole (let say at least 1cm in diameter) in the material then, yes, you would expect a matching burn mark on the underwear. If the former is correct, however, it suggests the skirt came in contact with a hot fire surround (the Sunbeam had vertical bars at its bottom).

I can’t recall it exactly either so it’s possible that my memory is playing me false but I have a strong feeling that I’ve read somewhere in the case that the burning on Julia’s skirt had gone into a hole. The reason that I’m ‘remembering’ it is because I wondered at the time why there was no mark on underskirt. I do recall mention of the parallel lines though which pointed to contact with the bars of the fire. So if there was a hole (and it has to remain an if until it can be confirmed or not) plus the lines isn’t it possible that the skirt had been burnt at an earlier time? Perhaps Julia was drying it on a chair in front of the fire and is slipped from the chair onto the fire or might Julia have dropped it?

[ColdCaseJury]

So if there was a hole (and it has to remain an if until it can be confirmed or not) plus the lines isn’t it possible that the skirt had been burnt at an earlier time? Perhaps Julia was drying it on a chair in front of the fire and is slipped from the chair onto the fire or might Julia have dropped it?

Under those circumstances, I think it would be reasonable to suggest the burned hole might have been from a previous accident; Julia was poorly dressed, after all.

I've dug out the statements, and it is clear why there is some confusion on this matter!

ROBERTS (ANALYST REPORT): At the bottom of the plaquet there were three horizontal burns...

SGT BAILEY (DEPOSITION): The skirt was burned at the front as then worn... as far as I could observe there were no signs of burning on the underskirt

ROBERTS (TRIAL): The skirt is burned right through [but agrees it was done by the fire on the night of the murder; and no mention of three burns]

So, were there three rectangular burns on the skirt - ones that burnt right through? Was there no burning on the underskirt, or just Bailey didn't see any? I wonder if the burning action was like a hot iron left on clothes rather than a naked flame. It would appear to be that way if there were three horizontal burns. As usual, we're left frustrated as there is no detailed description of the skirt burns or condition of the underskirt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Under those circumstances, I think it would be reasonable to suggest the burned hole might have been from a previous accident; Julia was poorly dressed, after all.

I've dug out the statements, and it is clear why there is some confusion on this matter!

ROBERTS (ANALYST REPORT): At the bottom of the plaquet there were three horizontal burns...

SGT BAILEY (DEPOSITION): The skirt was burned at the front as then worn... as far as I could observe there were no signs of burning on the underskirt

ROBERTS (TRIAL): The skirt is burned right through [but agrees it was done by the fire on the night of the murder; and no mention of three burns]

So, were there three rectangular burns on the skirt - ones that burnt right through? Was there no burning on the underskirt, or just Bailey didn't see any? I wonder if the burning action was like a hot iron left on clothes rather than a naked flame. It would appear to be that way if there were three horizontal burns. As usual, we're left frustrated as there is no detailed description of the skirt burns or condition of the underskirt.

Yes, it’s annoying that we are without a more accurate description of the skirt. All of the options that you mention are valid. Do we know why Bailey felt that it had been done that night.

Btw I just tried to get onto WWH’s site but a privacy warning came up and so I didn’t bother. I wonder why that happened as it’s never happened before and it’s not happening on other websites.

[Ven]

Hi Herlock, WWH's website is back up. He just had to update his SSL certificate

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, WWH's website is back up. He just had to update his SSL certificate

Thanks Ven. I thought that it was a tech issue at my end.

Sorry I’m so late responding to your post btw.

[Ven]

Just thought I would reacquaintance myself with the case. What is the difference, in 1930s terms, between bolting a door and locking a door? a bolt these days means a manual slider, so back then, if it meant the same thing, simply using a key does not undo the bolt, so a using key only is useless, did they mean by unlocking the door it unbolted it? Bolting a door these days means that someone from the inside had to release a stoppage to allow entry. I'm confused.

[ColdCaseJury]

Just thought I would reacquaintance myself with the case. What is the difference, in 1930s terms, between bolting a door and locking a door? a bolt these days means a manual slider, so back then, if it meant the same thing, simply using a key does not undo the bolt, so a using key only is useless, did they mean by unlocking the door it unbolted it? Bolting a door these days means that someone from the inside had to release a stoppage to allow entry. I'm confused.

Ven, if memory serves, you are correct about the Wallaces door:

UNLOCKED, UNBOLTED = Anyone can enter
LOCKED, UNBOLTED = Key holder can enter
BOLTED = Only someone from the inside can open the door

I believe a latch or nib was depressed to bolt or flicked-up (to release) i.e. it was not a sliding bolt. However, it was a sliding bolt on the yard gate.

Wallace always stated that the front door was bolted and that's why he could not enter. As Julia would always left the front door unbolted when he was out, he suspected someone might be inside (alternatively: he was lying to create that impression).