Tweet
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes
View Post
Interesting stuff WWH,
Coincidentally I decided last night to consider and list any doubts that I have when considering the Johnston’s involvement.
1. Wallace would have had very limited contact with the Johnston’s. Even less than Julia as he was out at work during the day so it’s difficult to see how a) he would have had time to build up any kind of level of confidence that he could even broach the subject let alone have confidence that Johnston would be open to the idea. After all, what if Johnston had said “no?’ Wallace couldn’t then have gone on to kill Julia. And b) How and where could they have discussed the plan. This would have been planned over a period of time requiring quite a few meetings. Wallace’s life was -work-home with Julia-occasional visits to the chess club.
2. I’d suggest that someone planning a murder would be lucky to find one accomplice willing to take on the huge risks involved and so how less likely would it be to find an accomplice who’s wife was willing to be in on it too?
3. Why didn’t Mr Johnston play the concerned neighbour and witness by entering the house with William? Especially as it appears that he was trying to give the impression that an intruder was still inside?
4. Why didn’t the Johnston’s simply say that as soon as they left their house they saw a shadowy figure run from the Wallace’s backdoor and leave by the gate seconds before Wallace returned from trying the front door?
5. If the Johnston’s were involved why didn’t they completely ransack the house to make it seriously look like a burglary as they would have known, if part of the plan, that they had limitless time.
6. If Johnston was the killer why would he have taken Julia into the Parlour?
7. If Johnston was the killer why would he have turned off the lights?
Ill read your scenario again later today.
1) I don't really tend to think they were so distant as they make out they were. Out of all the neighbors on the street, from what it appears, the Wallaces were closest with the Johnstons. Julia entrusted them with their family cat (a pet she was particularly attached to), and both Wallaces trusted them to look after their home in their abscence on vacation in preceding years (with Julia sending them postcards during their vacations as well).
This point AND the other point is a potential riddle with any accomplice theory including Gannon's and has probably been discussed many times. Whatever they agree or disagree to do, they know Wallace has dirt on them. Wallace's punishment will be more severe (though he's dying anyway), but he'll instantly turn heel on them if they tell the police what has happened.
But the entire point of blackmail is that you pressure the person into doing something in order to keep their secret, which leads perfectly into...
2) This is the implication of Gannon's theory (two willing accomplices), not a point specifically against the Johnstons. But I think the possibility of Mr. Johnston being jailed (who was seemingly keeping the family afloat, and would have left them in ruins if he had been jailed, as well as his own future career opportunities) is a stronger motive to go along with such a plot. Threatening to tell people that Marsden is sleeping with an old lady for money is hardly as strong of a motive. I think THAT is more strong of a case where Wallace could then NOT kill his wife had Marsden refused.
3) Even if Mr. Johnston was innocent, he still decided to suggest he stay outside while Wallace takes a look around, despite the implication from Wallace that there was some trouble in the home, so it's moot in my view. I'd also remind you that it was a point of contention for those against Wallace that he had told the Johnstons to wait outside. They fact-corrected this and said that it was actually Mr. Johnston who told Wallace to enter while they wait outside. One assuming Wallace's guilt might otherwise have asked why he didn't ask Mr. Johnston to follow him.
But in any case Wallace entering the home alone (and never forget this is the story we're TOLD by the way, and there's actually multiple incidents of disagreements between all parties as to what happened surrounding particular events which I could list) allows his wife to be found in the parlor as the last room checked. Checking that room last is perhaps yet another overcompensation at feigning ignorance - like the Qualthorpe etc. nonsense.
4) Always remember that implications are safer than lies. Although Wallace claimed he was sure an intruder was in the home, he also said that he heard no sounds coming from within the home. He simply gave implications of what may have happened, which allowed for an easy "out".
One practical example: On trial, under questioning, he retracted his "theory" that someone had still been in the home when he got back. If he'd said he heard someone in the house or someone said they saw shadowy figures running away, they'd be taken to the f*cking cleaners. Especially if someone had, at that time, been walking down one of the streets the non-existent man had ran onto. Instead he was able to say he had "given up on that theory".
If you claim to have seen someone, you would also be expected to give a description of the person, his height, build, it allows for a lot more potential things to go wrong... Imagine how it would look, the investigators scouring for fingerprints of a man they'd most certainly seen running out the back door, and finding nothing but those belonging to Wallace and the Johnstons? Or if they mixed up details of their description of the mystery man or where he ran to etc? WAY riskier, and more potential for slipping on their story - which happened anyway between all three of them, but in less condemning ways. Imply things and you have a safety net.
Saying they heard "thumps" at a certain time was enough to safely corroborate the idea by implication, and if it was exposed as impossible they could blame their father taking off his boots (which they said they thought it was) or some other ridiculousness.
5) The scene was specifically staged to resemble the burglary at 19 Wolverton Street. I think this coincidence is too much to accept, so it was probably done on purpose as a first layer of protection to mislead police from the motive of the crime and from Wallace.
6) Why would solo Wallace?
I think it was because he had Gordon Parry set up as the fall-guy in advance, he had a plot, a mystery caller, and in his head the "suspects" he could suddenly reveal as people who Julia would surely admit. Should the housebreaker theory fall flat (which it eventually did), then Julia's presence in the parlor would suggest an admitted guest. Again leading away from Wallace. Curiously he left out the Johnstons on the list of people Julia would admit, but went in hard on Gordon Parry.
7) Why would solo Wallace?
Also which lights were turned down and who had corroborated this? As far as I know, only the Johnstons and Wallace were on the scene at the time, and they are the ones we are trusting for their entire testimony of the events that unfolded from 8.45 and onwards. If the Johnstons were involved, any aspect of the story can be faked. If Mrs. Johnston was in on it as well as Mr. Johnston, then their entire testimony becomes unreliable.
---
I initially wasn't sure about Mrs. Johnston, I thought maybe Mr. Johnston did it hush-hush, as his testimony is the stranger of the two and he proveably lied in statements to the press about the events of that night (claiming Wallace forced the back door open for example). But there are a few things about her I found too weird as well:
1) Her and Wallace seemingly getting their wires crossed multiple times on who said "whatever have they used?"
2) Saying "you poor darling" rather than screaming or something. Not a typical reaction you'd have expected from a woman seeing her neighbor's brains and blood splattered all over the room. Even MacFall implied he was somewhat "affected" by the scene.
3) But moreso something VERY peculiar I found, and I think you will agree... Mrs. Johnston stated that she first heard Mr. Wallace knocking on the back door in his usual way, and took no notice as it was just a normal thing... But that is likely bullsh*t and I can prove it. A knock on that back door should not be remotely natural because:
a. Wallace's own words show that he was in the habit of only ever returning by the front door after dark.
b. Wallace had his own keys, why would knocking be expected if it was him?
c. The yard door should be bolted, why would it be natural that someone would have been knocking on the back door? Least of all at around 9 PM at night?
There are some more Florence oddities actually, like her lie about having only ever been in the home 3 times, and only ever in the parlor (bullsh*t, the Johnstons had opened and closed the Wallaces curtains during their vacation absence).
---
And the reason I think the above also implicates Wallace himself, is because he did not call them out on any of this. He was apparently smart enough to "figure out" Parry had done it, but not see the obvious lies being told right in front of his face by his next door neighbors. Mr. Johnston never hearing Julias name, not once in a decade?
Very selective in their hearing are the Johnstons.
And had they had involvement, being able to "slip away unnoticed" is explained very simply.
---
I'd also like to suggest a possible motive:
I could take the easy way out to sound more "believable" by saying he was just sick of his wife etc. but I'm not convinced that's what happened (though I do think it's possible) and it would be dishonest if I said otherwise. I am thinking it really DID involve Amy Wallace. Here's a few reasons why:
1) Amy's visit to Julia. From Goodman's account it does not sound as though they were a pairing who would get on too well, was she really in the habit of dropping by to see Julia while Wallace was at work? Was she really in the habit of inviting Julia to events often?
I suggest the true reason of her alledged "visit" (if it even happened - because nobody as far as I know has corroborated this - except hilariously the Johnstons if anyone) was to "learn" from Julia that Wallace had been called at the chess club the previous night to go out on a business meeting to the Calderstones area.
As you can see, this is a pointer to Wallace's innocence, since people might ask "if he was planning to just brain her anyway, why would he have bothered telling her his fake story?" it adds credibility to the "tricked husband" idea.
2) The allegations of Amy's BDSM and flagellation fetish and questionable actions in Malaya, paired with Wallace's very peculiar admission to police that a "dog lash with a whip" had been missing for 12 months, and the "sexually odd" comments of Gordon Parry. Even Goodman had referred to Amy as a "domineering" woman.
3) The fact that Joseph was not even in the country for long stretches of time. Amy had sexual needs, Wallace was essentially a clone of Joseph making him a perfect stand in, and if the allegations are believed as explained above, shared the same odd fetish as her too.
4) The fact Julia was 70 and most people argue that she WAS in fact incontinent, and Wallace was in his early 50s, a time when he should still feel some sexual desire.
5) I feel he may have actually cared for Julia, if the constable is to be believed that Wallace was most certainly crying (NOT dabbing his eyes from the cold), then I think it was probably a "necessity" or "revenge" killing. For example, either she found out something about Wallace she wasn't meant to know, or vice versa Wallace found out Julia was having an affair. Which seems less believable given her age.
---
These are my thoughts on this case as it stands currently. I believe it removes just about every single coincidence.
---
But FWIW, I haven't followed these leads as I've been focusing on other lines of investigation, but very early on someone named "Harris" as a suspect. Such a man lived at 79 Richmond Park, which had access into the same back entry as Wallace's home. Perhaps it was him being referenced rather than Gordon Parry?
I would also urge people to research the "man in a dark overcoat with an umbrella" reported as having taken a cab at some time around 7 to Sefton Park, in a very agitated manner, asking the driver "you won't kill me, will you?". I have not been able to find more information on this. He was apparently 5'11, well-mannered and well-spoken, with hair that had just started turning grey, with rimmed glasses and a slight moustache.
Comment