Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury
JOHN G wrote:
In respect of Wallace, his clothes were never forensically tested, nor was he subjected to a strip search. Superintendent Moore said that he examined him pretty well. However,what did this examination consist of?: "...his boots, hands, and the bottom his trousers." Doesn't seem like a particularly thorough search to me. For instance, his bare legs and feet were never inspected, which is highly significant when you consider the police argument concerning Wallace being naked under the Macintosh. Could it be possible that he rubbed off enough blood with a cloth, and maybe cleaning material, to pass Moore's somewhat cursory visual inspection? The same would also apply to Parry. Now I'm not saying I think that's what did happen, only that it can't be entirely discounted.
John, some good points. WHW's clothes were tested by Benzidine. However, he (his body) was not.
Interesting facts. The nailbrush (which James Murphy makes much of) was taken away by Inspector Gold along with a carpet and towel from the bathroom (and other objects from the house). The carpet, towel and some of the other objects were tested for blood (Benzidine) - the nailbrush was not (it was not even listed in the analyst's report). It was, however, an exhibit at the trial.
The only reference to the drains being tested (Benzidine) comes from Charles St Hill on the radio broadcast, which was picked up by John Gannon. I asked John Gannon whether he had any documentary evidence to support this claim, because I have not found any. It appears there is none.
So, what do you make of this? I have a theory, but I'd been keen to hear your views.
Thanks for the information, much appreciated. It's obviously significant that Wallace's clothing were tested for blood- I would have thought that any traces not thoroughly removed from the skin, assuming he was naked under the Macintosh, would seep through to his suit.
Interestingly, in respect of the assailant, a medical expert for the defence opined, "I should say he could hardly escape being spattered and covered with blood all over".
And you do wonder about Dr McFall's competency. For instance, at the trial he admitted to not even taking any notes whilst observing the progress of rigor; the defence expert responded by stating, "I should certainly do so in my case." Neither did McFall bother taking a rectal temperature to help determine the time of death. Again, the defence expert stated that this is something that should have been done.
It does appear that the evidence for the drains being tested is rather weak: I wonder if Charles St Hill was getting mixed up with the drains being examined for the murder weapon.
However, is this significant? Presumably if any blood was washed off in the bath or sink, traces should have been detected by the benzidine test. It would, though, be interesting to see the views of a modern expert on this matter.