Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Ven]

But Alan didn't come forward at first, William didn't know he would, while the police heavily suspected him (immediately, this is apparent by the officer's notebook).
Doesn’t matter, see my other post about Close.

Why would he omit telling officers the milk boy was the last to see his wife alive if this is the be all and end all for him getting away with it?
No idea, but again refer to my post about Close, he was there, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, if he didn’t see what he testified, what did he see…and why would have this been just as “juicy”

Alan Close is 14, I remember being 14, he knows how serious murder and capital punishment is.
Maybe, but still doesn’t explain above point.

William's the one who said they ate together when he got in. If they did eat when he said, the stomach contents imply she died quite a bit after William left the house (this according to Gannon).
If William’s the murderer then he lied, so which one is it?

I did read the full paper I am already aware of all the things stated in it, the jacket wasn't placed on her head or held up in front of her by Julia waiting for a special surprise... The forensic evidence about the blood spray and the staining on the inner sleeves are consistent with someone having worn it when she was struck for one thing.
How do you get blood on the inner sleeves if you’re wearing it?

Who saw Wallace at the telephone box, on the tram, etc? Noone. Allegedly noone saw Gordon either. If either were sighted nobody came forward. Nobody came forward to say they saw Gordon's car somewhere else at the time either.
Hey, we agree on something!! So it could have been either of them then? … and William could have been on any tram!

The forensic tests were off. I'm saying William would be unlikely to be well versed in forensics, and could not expect them to mess it up. To his mind he has no reason to be out for 2 hours. It's completely pointless. Going to Calderstones and back is enough.
One hour, two hours… your point doesn’t change anything… was William well versed in forensics, chemistry is not forensics.

I think William might have been bisexual. I don't think that was the motive. Amy seems involved, I think the motive relates to her... I don't outright think Amy was whipping people in Malaysia, but her personality fits the type of person who would have that type of kink. Amy would obviously have sexual needs for the LONG periods Joseph is away. At the same time, 69 year old Julia is deemed "virginal" by MacFall, and in any case a woman her age is unlikely to be very sexually active, while William is at an age where he may well be... He is very close to Amy... An affair between them is not at all unlikely... This is a significantly stronger motive than Julia frauding her age.
Sorry, no way! If I wanted children, or have sex at 50, and I found out my "same" age wife was 16 years older…!!!!!

There's no evidence at all that Wallace was recently told this information, or of any conversation where she randomly admitted it to him due to lamenting over not being spring chickens...
I understand that , but we now know she was 16 years older… we don’t know a lot of conversations, feelings etc… but that she is 16 years older is now known. And you still haven’t come up with any other motive BASED ON FACT other than a "rumour" he was having an affair... that also didn't go anywhere after the trial and Acquittal!

Anything with a fake address is easily accomplished with a real one. The fake address is only negative. The client name is clearly meant to be the Pru client, which is basically the entire basis for Gannon's book (I noticed you put Gannon as a reference, hence I reference his evidence a few times).
I used lots of references, Gannon was merely one. A fake, but nearby, plausible address is better as explained in the paper… If you still disagree then I’m fine with that. I don’t agree but hey, that’s how your brain works.

I'm not sure what time Amy actually left, as I don't see that it has been corroborated by anyone. One witness got the case reopened years after because, since the murder happened, he wrote dozens of letters to everyone including the home office stating he had DEFINITELY seen Amy with Wallace at Scotland Road around 8 PM, asking for directions to the ferry landind stage, while Amy looked nervous.
Based on everything we have she left before William got there, but again no biggy. As far as the landing stage witness account goes… not sure what this means at all, William was still down near Menlove Gardens wasn’t he?

Ven
"Love, is like oxygen... it gets you high..."

[MK114]

Yes the phone call is definitely weird it would be interesting to see the case file and what the police believed at the time.

I am one who believes that a person's behavior when confronted face to face is worthy of a lot of attention.

Respectfully,
MK114

[WallaceWackedHer]

Its possible that the attack was planned for the first burglary scenario but fell through for whatever reason.

It is certainly strange I'll agree with that. When things get weird it's best to stick to the known facts and keep it simple.

Respectfully,
MK114

If it turns out to be true, I think the same person is responsible for both crimes. Apparently, a hidden savings pot was emptied and replaced, and things randomly chucked about in one of the upstairs bedrooms. In my opinion that's an uncanny similarity I wouldn't be able to ignore.

If the staging was purposefully meant to simulate that burglary by William (to give the impression it was the same man), I think William would have nudged the police onto that particular lead. Rather than letting them ignore it.

I am seeing the full case file on Thursday, so if that's true, I can confirm it as a known fact, or quash that rumour.

Keeping it simple, I think the call screams practical joke (hence the details are very poor for any budding murderer - yet very amusing to trick someone with), while the crime scene has Wallace written all over it and appears highly haphazard (rather than carefully premeditated).

[MK114]

Its possible that the attack was planned for the first burglary scenario but fell through for whatever reason.

It is certainly strange I'll agree with that. When things get weird it's best to stick to the known facts and keep it simple.

Respectfully,
MK114

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi Ven,

Good questions. I don't claim to know all the answers about the case. I will say criminals make stupid mistakes all the time otherwise they wouldn't get caught. And some aren't caught even when they do make mistakes.

As far as a witness coming forward years later. To me its credible for a few reasons.
First witnesses are afraid whether from retaliation or not sure they want to be involved, Or just flat out being scared.

We need to look at motive. Who would benefit from the victims death. Money is always a winner but a close second would be domestic violence. I read somewhere that the Wallaces had an argument not long before Julia was murdered. That stands out also.

The fact that nothing was disturbed and reportedly only money was taken from one particular place would register high on my radar as something is amiss. That is not a typical burglary in my view. Burglars dont typically kill a home owner, they flee when confronted. Also being nothing was ransacked anywhere in the homeis strange.

I've found the most likely scenario is usually the correct scenario.

Respectfully,
MK114

The burglary seems blatantly staged. However, apparently the scene at the burglary that took place just one month earlier was identical. Hence that adds an element of uncertainty if that turns out to be true.

[MK114]

Hi Ven,

Good questions. I don't claim to know all the answers about the case. I will say criminals make stupid mistakes all the time otherwise they wouldn't get caught. And some aren't caught even when they do make mistakes.

As far as a witness coming forward years later. To me its credible for a few reasons.
First witnesses are afraid whether from retaliation or not sure they want to be involved, Or just flat out being scared.

We need to look at motive. Who would benefit from the victims death. Money is always a winner but a close second would be domestic violence. I read somewhere that the Wallaces had an argument not long before Julia was murdered. That stands out also.

The fact that nothing was disturbed and reportedly only money was taken from one particular place would register high on my radar as something is amiss. That is not a typical burglary in my view. Burglars dont typically kill a home owner, they flee when confronted. Also being nothing was ransacked anywhere in the homeis strange.

I've found the most likely scenario is usually the correct scenario.

Respectfully,
MK114

[WallaceWackedHer]

Another thing on Close, who did do his round that evening (regardless of the time for the moment). did he or did he not receive the empty milk pail back?
Did he look up, when at No. 31. to see who swapped it over?
In the trial. in his testimony, why wouldn't he have said what actually happened? Isn't it just as intriguing for a kid to say "I left the milk at the door and when i returned, from just a few yards away, the pail was returned empty!"

As a matter of curiosity, did the kids collect the cash?

He got it back. He was gloating that he was "the missing link" in the case among the other children because he had seen Julia. I'm not sure about the money. But I don't find his testimony to be very reliable... Maybe moderately... I definitely wouldn't take his word as some iron clad timestamp.

I do believe the alibi Wallace lucked out with from Alan, regardless of the details of how the crime was committed, was not factored in. Hence the ommission of mentioning him despite the fact it looked like Alan wasn't going to come forward at all.

[Ven]

Hi WWH,

as stated, young Close DID do his rounds that night. Regardless of what he said happened, can you please "speculate" on what he did actually encounter, and how this would not have been just as intriguing/influential or otherwise on the case?

Ven
"its a blitz, it's a blitz...it's a ballroom blitz...yaaaaaahhhhhhhh...it's a ballroom blitz"

[WallaceWackedHer]

But Alan didn't come forward at first, William didn't know he would, while the police heavily suspected him (immediately, this is apparent by the officer's notebook).

Why would he omit telling officers the milk boy was the last to see his wife alive if this is the be all and end all for him getting away with it?

Alan Close is 14, I remember being 14, he knows how serious murder and capital punishment is.

William's the one who said they ate together when he got in. If they did eat when he said, the stomach contents imply she died quite a bit after William left the house (this according to Gannon).

I did read the full paper I am already aware of all the things stated in it, the jacket wasn't placed on her head or held up in front of her by Julia waiting for a special surprise... The forensic evidence about the blood spray and the staining on the inner sleeves are consistent with someone having worn it when she was struck for one thing.

Who saw Wallace at the telephone box, on the tram, etc? Noone. Allegedly noone saw Gordon either. If either were sighted nobody came forward. Nobody came forward to say they saw Gordon's car somewhere else at the time either.

The forensic tests were off. I'm saying William would be unlikely to be well versed in forensics, and could not expect them to mess it up. To his mind he has no reason to be out for 2 hours. It's completely pointless. Going to Calderstones and back is enough.

I think William might have been bisexual. I don't think that was the motive. Amy seems involved, I think the motive relates to her... I don't outright think Amy was whipping people in Malaysia, but her personality fits the type of person who would have that type of kink. Amy would obviously have sexual needs for the LONG periods Joseph is away. At the same time, 69 year old Julia is deemed "virginal" by MacFall, and in any case a woman her age is unlikely to be very sexually active, while William is at an age where he may well be... He is very close to Amy... An affair between them is not at all unlikely... This is a significantly stronger motive than Julia frauding her age. There's no evidence at all that Wallace was recently told this information, or of any conversation where she randomly admitted it to him due to lamenting over not being spring chickens...

Anything with a fake address is easily accomplished with a real one. The fake address is only negative. The client name is clearly meant to be the Pru client, which is basically the entire basis for Gannon's book (I noticed you put Gannon as a reference, hence I reference his evidence a few times).

I'm not sure what time Amy actually left, as I don't see that it has been corroborated by anyone. One witness got the case reopened years after because, since the murder happened, he wrote dozens of letters to everyone including the home office stating he had DEFINITELY seen Amy with Wallace at Scotland Road around 8 PM, asking for directions to the ferry landind stage, while Amy looked nervous.

[Ven]

Another thing on Close, who did do his round that evening (regardless of the time for the moment). did he or did he not receive the empty milk pail back?
Did he look up, when at No. 31. to see who swapped it over?
In the trial. in his testimony, why wouldn't he have said what actually happened? Isn't it just as intriguing for a kid to say "I left the milk at the door and when i returned, from just a few yards away, the pail was returned empty!"

As a matter of curiosity, did the kids collect the cash?

[Ven]

WWH #2876
Okay so, just so you know, the discovery of the iron bar years later is uncertain. At the time of the murder the police actually removed the entire fireplace unit from the wall, so if a bar was there they should have found it. The poker was missing and unaccounted for.
Lots of things are uncertain in this case. The police removed the front piece but they weren’t renovating. Regardless, as the bar was bloodless , as I explained in my paper, William could have taken it with him a disposed of it anywhere.

There's good evidence that Wallace was not relying on Alan Close for his alibi.
No there isn’t.

Alan Close was not even going to come forward and tell police about his alleged sighting, he was just forced into it by the other young children he had told. Alan Close is a very poor witness, he fell asleep and laughed constantly in court, even on the stand, he's not reliable.
Not sure how that makes a young kid unreliable. Kids that age may not understand the importance of things.

.. Despite Alan apparently being the crucial element of his alibi, when Alan did not come forward, William made zero mention of him... When asked who aside from him last saw his wife, he never mentioned the milk boy and thus easily might have ended up with no alibi.
Alan eventually came forward. William doesn’t need to mention him if Alan says he saw Julia at 6.30+
The local shop name as the caller name is not as likely as the name being meant to reflect R J Qualtrough who was a known and reasonably notorious client among some agents of the Pru (known for being difficult). Given the call is about insurance business, the link makes sense.
Not sure of this history. If he was a regular client, why would “the phone caller" use this name to ask for William, the existing Qualtrough must have had an agent already!...and to call WW at his hobby.. not workplace… too many issues here.

The street name has no reason to be fake and the name no reason to be peculiar. He doesn't need to be gone for 2 hours, a trip there and straight back would be adequate if he was just trying to show he was elsewhere when his wife was killed.
The longer the time, within reason of course, the harder it is to determine TOD…. As shown in the JTR threads.

Apparently he has this masterful way of killing her and getting out in an impossible timeframe as well, so there's really no reason.
Not impossible, my paper shows that. If he waits for Julia to come back in and kills here straight away and then leaves, not having to shower and change etc. 3 minutes max.

A fake address only has negatives.
No, only positives, as explained in my paper… did you read it all?

I doubt he's well versed in forensics but the poor estimate with such a wide berth should not have been possible if the correct tests for the time of death were carried out (they were not)... ALL forensics believe Julia died at 6 PM. MacFall said he doesn't give a **** what the milk boy claims he saw and that it's 6 PM.
In that same paragraph you say the forensics would prove it, but they were not carried out correctly, but the time of death is…. !!! you lost me here big time!!

A random believable name like Paul Jackson at Menlove Gardens West works far better as a plan.
Not for me…no worries though.

A believable name and a real address he could see exists and visit. All he needs is maybe a tram conductor and perhaps residents of Menlove West and he can return home... Maybe try 26 North and South, and 25 Menlove Avenue. But it's altogether unnecessary.
Unnecessary for you. Qualtrough is not altogether "unbelievable".

Considering the evidence is stronger that Gordon Parry placed the call,
Disagree, no evidence at all that it was GP.. .Who saw his car, him anyone? Even WW at the telephone kiosk? GP MAY have been in the area but so was WW.

I think the call is a prank and William killed Julia due to something relating to Amy. I'm not sure William even knew he'd been tricked until later, rather, I would say he's amped up due to killing Julia and that's why he acts so weird.
So you still don’t have a motive…I think I gave a very good one.
WW tricked about what…and why later?

Given the evidence of the scene, the parlour fire has been on for at least a little while since Julia has scorched grid marks on her skirt (says Gannon) which would match the safety grid on the fire... So it had to be on for a little while to have heated up like that
How long does that take?

... William's raincoat is under Julia, it's the same raincoat he had worn before his return home at around 6 PM...
And would have taken it off when he came inside, and hung it in the entrance hall… who eats dinner in their raincoat?

So when Wallace gets home at 6, the parlour fireplace may realistically have already been on (due to Amy's visit - she claims she was taken into the kitchen but on previous occasions she was received in the parlour), and Wallace already has his raincoat on. The stars are aligned right there.
No, but fireplace could have been on earlier…not a biggie…especially if was still warm from Amy’s visit as you say.

It's also worth a mention that Amy is a name which often pops up among lesser known witnesses.
Funny, as independent I was of this site for the last 9 months, I came up with Amy as being involved.

And the information that Amy was into bondage was not created by author Colin Wilson, it was a member of parliament. Goodman also describes Amy as domineering. It is then weird when William mentions the missing dog whip (firstly, why does he own a dog whip, secondly, why would you randomly mention something you haven't seen in 12 months).
No comment on this… if you believe the rumour about her sexuality, do you believe the rumour about William’s sexuality (which I covered)? Whether they had an affair doesn’t affect my case. I believe Amy and William were close but that relates back to my paper regarding why Amy was in Liverpool and that William may have been like a big brother to her because her husband was overseas so much.

Thanks again for reading my paper WWH. Did you like or agree with any of my reasonings?
Did you like my Appendices… I particularly like the photo and cartoon images!

Ven

(Sweet avatar still to come)

[WallaceWackedHer]

One of the books from the time says about the accent. I don't think he spoke like a local Liverpudlian. There are also then two fake voices. A first fake one used when talking to the operators, then a second and totally different fake one (but with the same accent) when talking to the waitress and Beattie... Plus first hand testimony that it was not his voice. Like even when trying to imagine it was Wallace faking a voice, those who knew him and heard it, said categorically that it wasn't him.

The guy just didn't place a call to himself.

Meanwhile there is another person who can be placed in the right place at the right time who completely frauded his whereabouts, and who was well known to place calls like that one regularly. And also a man who apparently pronounced the word cafè in the kaffay form as heard by operators.

Gordon Parry is the caller. Straight up. Waterhouse's version of Wallace having Gordon call is more likely than Wallace being the man who rang. Wallace as the caller does not fit at all, it's just cooler for the air of mystery.

However in either case the details of the call are just not good for the purpose (which would make me believe Gordon on orders of Wallace had accidentally bungled the details). I mean it literally fails INSTANTLY since he's told, essentially as soon as he gets to Menlove, that the address does not exist (as well as Deyes at the club the night prior saying he knows North, West, and South but has not heard of East). The non-existence of the address was also a big point for the prosecution... And choosing a name that can be linked to someone he supervised at the Pru (Marsden - Parry's close friend)? How exactly is that wise?... The address could seem clever to a person thinking up such a scheme, but using that name that can somewhat link back to them would be clearly stupid to anyone who was plotting a crime.

There absolutely does not need to be so many alibis, he already has Beattie having taken the phone call, he doesn't need to cement it in the minds of other chess club members at all. It's entirely unnecessary. Asking conductors for Menlove West works exactly as well. So would being a nuisance in some other minor way.

The whole timing thing is just incidental. If he was so bothered about Alan Close being the crux of him living or dying, he would have mentioned him being the last person he knows of to have seen her alive. Especially when Alan seemed like he wasn't gonna say anything about it.

Wallace is a failure of a chess player and didn't even know what year it was (a recurring problem, evidenced by diary entries predating the murder by a fair bit as well). How is he pre-empting 1001 things, then putting the cash box back up and leaving his jacket under Julia's dead body like a fool? The apparent complexity of the phone call doesn't match the pitiful staging of the crime scene, which seems like a staged robbery even to a 5 year old.

If he is going to tell Amy all this and have her turn up to ensure Julia doesn't know about the trip (how would she know if William never told Julia?), he'd have her place a phone call, because she's an accomplice at that point... If she went there for some premeditated reason it would just be so she could later claim Julia had discussed the trip.

Also regardless of the confirmed phone box fault, the caller pressed button A before the voice on the other end had answered, which everyone at the time knew is something you did not do (you pressed it only after you heard the voice of your correspondent).

...

I'd also take note of the difference in Wallace's behavior on the chess night, and then the murder night... On the chess night he's preoccupied with the match and excitedly explaining how he won and what moves he played. The next day he's acting rather erratic and entirely different from the day prior.

When giving testimony, Wallace's statements about his chess night are concrete and unwavering. He never seems rattled. For the following day and night, he constantly contradicts himself and makes mistakes... Though having said that Wallace is a man who blatantly suffers from memory trouble so I guess it's harder to judge.

Julia was far richer than William when they married. If anyone was using anyone for cash it was Wallace using Julia. Julia owned and rented out a fancy expensive home, while Wallace had to send his dad to die in an infirmary.

...

All in all though, the call SEEMS like a prank call, while the murder SEEMS like it was carried out in a very haphazard spur of the moment way - hence awful staging attempts... Intuitively it looks like that's the case.

If Wallace had premeditated the murder of his wife, she was very poorly with bronchitis. If he had slipped some of his magical chemicals to her he'd EASILY get away with it. It would look like Julia died from the illness.

The mackintosh wasn't placed on Julia's head while she waited for a surprise. Doing that WOULD have been the intelligent way to avoid blood spray, but the fact there's blood sprayed all over the walls (and IIRC no brains on the jacket- but there might be) shows this was NOT done.

[Ven]

Cheers for that. Give me a minute I'll go through it.
Parry is the man who placed the telephone call. Evidence does not support William as the caller except that the waitress (when the caller was purposefully putting on a gruff voice) thought it sounded like an older man. He'd have to have lied about his route before even knowing he'd been logged for it to even be possible.
In the regular sounding voice heard by operators, they identified a local accent. But William grew up in Yorkshire, moving to Liverpool late in life, and would have had a different accent.
Hi WWH,
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to read my paper. I obviously didn’t write it well enough based on all your comments but it is its first public outing so thank you again.
It looks like we’re going to have a very hearty discussion on the matter. I look forward to it! I firmly believe you are entitled to your opinions…even if you are are wrong!
William had been living in Liverpool for 16 years. Would he have not picked up a Liverpool accent by then? 99.99% of the people he spoke to, on his daily rounds, had a Liverpool accent. I know when I called home from a holiday in America (a long time ago) my family asked why I was talking funny! After 16 years he would be able to do a very good impression anyway, I think.
As far as what route he said he took on the Monday, I reason that he would have said the one he usually did, regardless. If he didn’t do it, then that’s the route he took. If he did do it and knew the phone call was logged he would definitely say it and lastly, if he made the call but didn’t know it was logged, he would still say his usual route otherwise the police would ask ”Why, if you’re going to the chess club would you catch a tram from near the phone kiosk? Which isn’t your normal route?”
Unlike the following evening, when he carried on like a pork chop, and was therefore remembered, he could have taken any mode of transport and not be remembered at all. I catch a tram every day, to and from work, and could not possible tell you, if asked a week later “Do you recognise this person being on your tram?” whether that person had been on my tram that day. Also consider that, back then, everyone wore very similar clothing…this goes for other “witness” sightings as well, but more on that later. Also, even at that time of night, the trams ran every 9 minutes or so, they would only do that if lots of people were travelling at that time of night. So, lots of trams, lots of people, similar clothing, everyone only worried about themselves….
Wow, your second post is gonna take forever to respond to!!

[Ven]

Hi MK114

Definitely not Ninjas…no footprints on the parlour ceiling.

re the "cleaned car" issue...it appears to me as a little weird -
1. would you go and get your car sprayed out at a commercial garage?
2. Why say "They'll hang me if they find that" when you're getting a non-accomplice to spray out the blood.
3. Would a senior Police Officer really just ignore the testimony? When it was supposedly done by someone who knew William. Also, there is no corroboration that the statement to police was every made...just someone that came forward 50 years later!... a lot later than a certain little milk boy!
4. If there's all that blood in the car, how did it not get anywhere else in the house? (I hope my explanation for the lack of blood anywhere made sense).

Ven

[WallaceWackedHer]

Okay so, just so you know, the discovery of the iron bar years later is uncertain. At the time of the murder the police actually removed the entire fireplace unit from the wall, so if a bar was there they should have found it. The poker was missing and unaccounted for.

There's good evidence that Wallace was not relying on Alan Close for his alibi. Alan Close was not even going to come forward and tell police about his alleged sighting, he was just forced into it by the other young children he had told. Alan Close is a very poor witness, he fell asleep and laughed constantly in court, even on the stand, he's not reliable... Despite Alan apparently being the crucial element of his alibi, when Alan did not come forward, William made zero mention of him... When asked who aside from him last saw his wife, he never mentioned the milk boy and thus easily might have ended up with no alibi.

The local shop name as the caller name is not as likely as the name being meant to reflect R J Qualtrough who was a known and reasonably notorious client among some agents of the Pru (known for being difficult). Given the call is about insurance business, the link makes sense.

The street name has no reason to be fake and the name no reason to be peculiar. He doesn't need to be gone for 2 hours, a trip there and straight back would be adequate if he was just trying to show he was elsewhere when his wife was killed. Apparently he has this masterful way of killing her and getting out in an impossible timeframe as well, so there's really no reason. A fake address only has negatives. I doubt he's well versed in forensics but the poor estimate with such a wide berth should not have been possible if the correct tests for the time of death were carried out (they were not)... ALL forensics believe Julia died at 6 PM. MacFall said he doesn't give a **** what the milk boy claims he saw and that it's 6 PM.

A random believable name like Paul Jackson at Menlove Gardens West works far better as a plan. A believable name and a real address he could see exists and visit. All he needs is maybe a tram conductor and perhaps residents of Menlove West and he can return home... Maybe try 26 North and South, and 25 Menlove Avenue. But it's altogether unnecessary.

Considering the evidence is stronger that Gordon Parry placed the call, I think the call is a prank and William killed Julia due to something relating to Amy. I'm not sure William even knew he'd been tricked until later, rather, I would say he's amped up due to killing Julia and that's why he acts so weird.

Given the evidence of the scene, the parlour fire has been on for at least a little while since Julia has scorched grid marks on her skirt (says Gannon) which would match the safety grid on the fire... So it had to be on for a little while to have heated up like that... William's raincoat is under Julia, it's the same raincoat he had worn before his return home at around 6 PM... So when Wallace gets home at 6, the parlour fireplace may realistically have already been on (due to Amy's visit - she claims she was taken into the kitchen but on previous occasions she was received in the parlour), and Wallace already has his raincoat on. The stars are aligned right there.

---

It's also worth a mention that Amy is a name which often pops up among lesser known witnesses. And the information that Amy was into bondage was not created by author Colin Wilson, it was a member of parliament. Goodman also describes Amy as domineering. It is then weird when William mentions the missing dog whip (firstly, why does he own a dog whip, secondly, why would you randomly mention something you haven't seen in 12 months).