Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Its shows an obvious weakness if you keep resorting to accusations of bias. I am not biased. In fact I’m one of the most cautious posters on Casebook as I’m always complaining about posters stating opinion as fact. You appear to now resemble Rod I’m afraid. You have a fixed idea and you therefore think that you must be correct because only you are capable of assessing facts impartially.

Just curious which fixed idea are you referring to out of the 50+ I have cycled through and may continue to cycle through?

Haven't you had the exact same "fixed idea" since day one with no shift whatsoever regardless of any new evidence that has come out?

Would you say milk boys literally jogging with milk crates being considered a fair argument is impartial? Where was Alan when the 6.30 church bells rang? Not at Wolverton Street just lol.

Isn't that more similar to Rod? Lmao... That's not opinion OR fact, that's just misinformation.

[WallaceWackedHer]

From Healthline:

“The average walking speed of a human is 3 to 4 miles per hour,”

From VeryWellFit:

“A brisk walking pace can be from 13 to 20 minutes per mile, or from 3.0 mph to 4.5 mph.”

Brisk - As in a lad who is running late and probably wants to be out with his mates.

Plus, using an online calculator 500 yards in 5 minutes is 3.41 mph. So even if we add on an extra and generous 100 yards to account for the tasks, we get 600 yards which is 4.09 mph. Which according to the above health sites is average walking pace according to one and brisk walking space according to the other. So where you get jogging pace from is rather a mystery?

Are we know trying to bend the laws of physics to prove a point? What next? Parry had the ability to slip into another dimension?

Try hopping on a treadmill some time and you'll quickly see that over 4 mph is not a normal pace lmao. 4 to 5 mph is hitting jogging pace as you will easily find if you continue your research.

That's if all of his stops took only 1 minute combined. Don't forget to carry a crate full of milk jugs on the treadmill too.

Seems legit lmao. Bending physics is saying he was at Wolverton Street before even seeing Elsie when the bells chimed. That's legit some quantum physics wormhole stuff.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Does this pass for logic?

He would then have the task of having to dispose of a shirt, a pair of trousers and probably a tie. You keep on with this silly idea of burning clothing. Why do you keep ignoring very obvious facts? Could he have stood around for half an hour or more ensuring that they had burned fully? Of course not? Could he have been certain of having enough time on his return? Of course not. Would he have had time on his return to sift through the ashes to ensure that nothing remained? No piece of cloth or button.? Of course not. The burning idea is a non-starter.

So now you are suggesting that ifWallace had used his wife’s coat he’d have been ok? For real? Would the police have said “gotcha” just because it was his coat? The suggestion is ludicrous as they couldn’t prove what it was doing there in the first place. This is elementary stuff. It’s very obvious. And you accuse me of being biased?

The fact that she didn’t wear it when she went outside plus the fact that it ended up underneath her plus the fact that her own coat would have been next to William’s make it extremely unlikely that she had worn it.

Could she have carried it into the Parlour for innocent reasons? No one has come up with anything plausible.

As Holmes said “when you eliminate the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.”

There can be almost no doubt that the mackintosh was used in some way by the killer. This is the only reasoned, logical suggestion. However inconvenient for some.

Omg literally Pogo the Clown tier. Just lol.

Holmes isn't real, fiction isn't reality. And you're not even following your own hero's advice. Especially when kids' walking speeds and jogging speeds are on average a tiny bit slower than adults' due to shorter strides.

Actual real murderers have burned the clothes they are wearing. That's what normal human beings do outside of fiction books. Not shielding themselves then going out in the same outfit that's dense as hell. Not only that but many allege he disposed of a blood soaked murder weapon, but I guess he couldn't be F'd to get rid of anything else. Though I think we agree on matters pertaining to the weapon.

You think putting a shirt and trousers in the kitchen fire (which was still burning when he got home) is more risky than hoping not even the most tiniest dot of blood got on his clothes while holding up his shield like the knights of the round table? And then shoving his jacket covered in his wife's blood under her body?

That's LESS risky? Really? That's really what you're going with?

Is that what YOU would do? At the LEAST I'd change clothes and put the others back if not burn them (but I'd consider chucking it in a fire at full blaze. No chance in HELL is a shirt and trousers surviving that. If it did I'd relight it when I went back in alone and then it also helps it look like she died later so...).

Whatever the case the risk is about 1000x less than just taking my jacket and shoving it under my victim's body. Out of every possible thing you could do, that is THE worst.

And yes they DID say "gotchya" because it was his own coat. Just like you are doing and every other person since 1931 has done. This is elementary stuff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just curious which fixed idea are you referring to out of the 50+ I have cycled through and may continue to cycle through?

Haven't you had the exact same "fixed idea" since day one with no shift whatsoever regardless of any new evidence that has come out?

Would you say milk boys literally jogging with milk crates being considered a fair argument is impartial? Where was Alan when the 6.30 church bells rang? Not at Wolverton Street just lol.

Isn't that more similar to Rod? Lmao... That's not opinion OR fact, that's just misinformation.

Your current fixation is that Wallace couldn’t have done it. Tomorrow it might be the cat again. Or the Johnston’s. Or Amy. Or some random burglars. Or Caird.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Try hopping on a treadmill some time and you'll quickly see that over 4 mph is not a normal pace lmao. 4 to 5 mph is hitting jogging pace as you will easily find if you continue your research.

That's if all of his stops took only 1 minute combined. Don't forget to carry a crate full of milk jugs on the treadmill too.

Seems legit lmao. Bending physics is saying he was at Wolverton Street before even seeing Elsie when the bells chimed. That's legit some quantum physics wormhole stuff.

These were taken from two websites dedicated specifically to fitness using a calculator. They’re wrong of course because you simply have to be right.

[WallaceWackedHer]

These were taken from two websites dedicated specifically to fitness using a calculator. They’re wrong of course because you simply have to be right.

4 mph is not a normal walking pace, I did check the web but I didn't specifically need to because I actually go to the gym believe it or not, I urge you to do the same then hop on the treadmill, and set it to 4.2 mph. Bring a crate of milk. Then come tell me how it's such an ordinary pace. Even at 6'2 or whatever it is, it's a clear "hurry".

But of course Alan HAD to have been fast-walking/jogging (depending on how long his stops took, because I'm being pretty damn generous with 1 minute combined) because he was eager to go play with friends.

That's obviously more reasonable than him having walked at a normal pace (even though nobody who saw him said he appeared to be in a rush), because if he hurried it fits better with your set in stone cemented end-game answer. So clearly that MUST be what happened. Anything that can be bent with even the slightest amount of evidence to back it up MUST be what happened.

Let's see what your ultra-reliable "adults" had to say, because obviously the word of two random adults who had no reason to check their clock are right and the kids aren't - even though some of those "kids" were essentially young adults - that must be the case because it helps fit the set-in-stone unshakeable answer.

Mr. and Mrs. Holmes:

At 6.30 pm Mrs Holme heard the sound of knocking, and the sound of what she thought was someone falling. She asked her husband ‘Is that someone at our front door?’ He said ‘No. It’s at the Wallaces’.’ At 6.35 pm the Wallaces, front door was heard to close.

6.35 according to your super reliable adults.

How about the Johnstons. Well according to them, another set of "reliable adults" the milk was delivered to THEM at "about 6.30". Alan did not see Julia until AFTER he delivered to the Johnstons.

We know Alan knocked on 29 Wolverton Street, left the full jugs there, then went to 31, then returned to 29 Wolverton Street to collect the empty jugs, spoke to Julia briefly, then the door shut.

Please just admit you got it wrong already... It wasn't 6.30... 6.30 is delusional. I can't believe I've had to waste my time for like 10 pages just to prove it's false when there are far more pressing issues.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Omg literally Pogo the Clown tier. Just lol.

Childish insults aren’t reasoned debate.

Holmes isn't real, fiction isn't reality. And you're not even following your own hero's advice. Especially when kids' walking speeds and jogging speeds are on average a tiny bit slower than adults' due to shorter strides.

Bias pure and simple. Deliberately not allowing for the possibility that someone that is late might walk quicker than average. Are you psychic as well as Mr Perfect Logic? How can you possibly know Close’s walking pace? You’re assuming that he walked at an average pace. This is not logic.

Actual real murderers have burned the clothes they are wearing. That's what normal human beings do outside of fiction books. Not shielding themselves then going out in the same outfit that's dense as hell. Not only that but many allege he disposed of a blood soaked murder weapon, but I guess he couldn't be F'd to get rid of anything else. Though I think we agree on matters pertaining to the weapon.

Of course they have but they weren’t all under Wallace’s time constraint. He wouldn’t have just gone out and left it burning. Be serious. He could have come back to find that the fire had burnt out leaving half of it left. So does he start burning again when he gets back? How long for? Then does he rake through the ashes to check there’s nothing for the police to find. This is a joke.

You think putting a shirt and trousers in the kitchen fire (which was still burning when he got home) is more risky than hoping not even the most tiniest dot of blood got on his clothes while holding up his shield like the knights of the round table? And then shoving his jacket covered in his wife's blood under her body?

Why the hell does the simple act of holding something between the perpetrator and the victim appear like some kind of miraculous act to you. It’s because you simply don’t want it to be a possibility so that you can add this as number 67 in your book of excuses for William. This is childishly simple.

That's LESS risky? Really? That's really what you're going with?

Infinitely less risky. Immeasurably less risky. Finding one button in the ashes and it’s game over for Wallace. Finding a mackintosh to the police isn’t in the same league. How do you explain away burning clothes. You can’t. How can you explain the mackintosh. Simple....say that she had it in her hands when the killer struck....or that she’d thrown it over her shoulders...or that she was drying it by the fire when it accidentally caught light.

How would you explain a button or a piece of cloth in the kitchen fire? Answer ....you couldn’t. This is very basic level stuff but you don’t want to hear it. I wonder why?

Is that what YOU would do? At the LEAST I'd change clothes and put the others back if not burn them (but I'd consider chucking it in a fire at full blaze. No chance in HELL is a shirt and trousers surviving that. If it did I'd relight it when I went back in alone and then it also helps it look like she died later so...).

Then you have to get rid of them. How the hell is any of this simpler than just stuffing it under Julia’s body leaving the police no idea why it’s there but a few possible innocent explanations?

Whatever the case the risk is about 1000x less than just taking my jacket and shoving it under my victim's body. Out of every possible thing you could do, that is THE worst.

Nonsense.

And yes they DID say "gotchya" because it was his own coat. Just like you are doing and every other person since 1931 has done. This is elementary stuff.

Im going with a reasonable explanation rather than Julia cross dressing, or wearing it as a cape in this strange house where the outside is warmer than the inside. Yeah that makes sense.

Logic, reason and evidence show Parry played no part in Tuesdays events so were are left with fanciful what ifs. All of the witnesses who were actually in Wolverton Street, as opposed to kids discussing the subject the next day and disputing wording, point to much earlier than the dishonest 6.45 that the defence was trying to manipulate into being. Between 6.30 and 6.38 with the adult Mrs Johnston who should be trusted most going for much the earlier time. And to dispute this you cite Oliver who dishonestly adds about a minutes worth of extras onto what Close actually did. You accuse the police of dishonesty with nothing to back it up yet you ignore Oliver’s dishonesty written there in black and white. But hey....at least you’re not biased.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Your current fixation is that Wallace couldn’t have done it. Tomorrow it might be the cat again. Or the Johnston’s. Or Amy. Or some random burglars. Or Caird.

I was never fixated that James Caird did it. James Caird COULD have done it is what I am sure of. He was at the right place at the right time, likely knew where the box was, knew all the details of the business trip including the route William would take, the name of the client, time of the trip (etc.), and would be admitted by Julia. Not only this, but he was NOT due at the chess club that night, and loitered over the table as Beattie delivered the message.

Amy is another person who certainly could have done it. Again she has all necessary knowledge of the trip, likely knowledge of where the cash box is kept, and would be admitted by Julia.

John Sharpe Johnston is a brilliant suspect. He was at the right place at the right time, had perfect opportunity to get in and escape unseen, behaved even more strangely than William himself when inside the house, Phyllis apparently said she had not expected their visit that night, they had a key to the door, and the list goes on, and on, and on.

I'm able to explore these ideas because I'm not tunnel-visioned in on one cemented answer, and go with the flow of evidence as I learn more about the case. Caird and Johnston (Florence anyway) did a good job of defending William which is why I tend to err on the side of their innocence. I don't feel that a guilty party would help to get another person off of the crime they themselves committed... Since if they did, who knows who the cops might come looking for next.

Aside from that these are great suspects.

I know one of the dock labourers was a member of that housebreaking gang. I have also verified Slemen's claims that a coworker lived at Menlove Gardens South. A home on Menlove Gardens South was burgled within DAYS of 19 Wolverton Street... I do not have any proof of a connection of course, but that should be noted, and if it was 1931 I would be making inquiries.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Logic, reason and evidence show Parry played no part in Tuesdays events so were are left with fanciful what ifs. All of the witnesses who were actually in Wolverton Street, as opposed to kids discussing the subject the next day and disputing wording, point to much earlier than the dishonest 6.45 that the defence was trying to manipulate into being. Between 6.30 and 6.38 with the adult Mrs Johnston who should be trusted most going for much the earlier time. And to dispute this you cite Oliver who dishonestly adds about a minutes worth of extras onto what Close actually did. You accuse the police of dishonesty with nothing to back it up yet you ignore Oliver’s dishonesty written there in black and white. But hey....at least you’re not biased.

Dude I've proven 6.30 to be complete BS after wasting many pages just to do so, do I really have to do the exact same thing again just to prove yet another idea to be completely wrong? I'm actually making the argument for his guilt on your behalf so just lol tbh... In your own idea you said she carries the jacket in to him and he hits her (so he's not "shielding" himself right now), then she would fall into the fire with it. He would dispose of his clothing.

You're just mad because you're being proven wrong and jumping at me when I'm literally helping to improve your case lmao.

It's not logic to assume Alan's pace is faster than normal. You are the one playing "Mr. Psychic" because one would typically expect someone to be walking at a normal speed. You're playing psychic saying he was rushing to go hang out with friends. There is no evidence of this, every single piece of evidence even from your "reliable adults" shows it was after 6.30. AKA 6.30 is pure bias, there is NO way around it except to simply admit it.

I've gone with the reasonable idea that he's walking in an ordinary way.

The VERY SAME NIGHT they saw that jacket under Julia they became suspicious of William. Which is obviously what would happen if you shoved your own jacket under your wife's dead body. Like what do you expect them to think? Oh my actual god... If you're really going to make me waste time on things like this again then I suppose I will have to... But there are much more pressing matters and it feels like a complete waste of time.

[WallaceWackedHer]

In the meantime you can all enjoy this, a professional colorization of the crime scene (albeit I don't know the color of Julia's outfit):

[moste]

Dude I've proven 6.30 to be complete BS after wasting many pages just to do so, do I really have to do the exact same thing again just to prove yet another idea to be completely wrong? I'm actually making the argument for his guilt on your behalf so just lol tbh... In your own idea you said she carries the jacket in to him and he hits her (so he's not "shielding" himself right now), then she would fall into the fire with it. He would dispose of his clothing.

You're just mad because you're being proven wrong and jumping at me when I'm literally helping to improve your case lmao.

It's not logic to assume Alan's pace is faster than normal. You are the one playing "Mr. Psychic" because one would typically expect someone to be walking at a normal speed. You're playing psychic saying he was rushing to go hang out with friends. There is no evidence of this, every single piece of evidence even from your "reliable adults" shows it was after 6.30. AKA 6.30 is pure bias, there is NO way around it except to simply admit it.

I've gone with the reasonable idea that he's walking in an ordinary way.

The VERY SAME NIGHT they saw that jacket under Julia they became suspicious of William. Which is obviously what would happen if you shoved your own jacket under your wife's dead body. Like what do you expect them to think? Oh my actual god... If you're really going to make me waste time on things like this again then I suppose I will have to... But there are much more pressing matters and it feels like a complete waste of time.

I don’t see why it’s necessary to get so agitated over a difference of opinion. I hope we don’t get this thread closed down like the other one .I enjoy studying all the possibilities.
Close ,I would wager was gone by 6.35pm. Julia was dead by 6 37.Wallace ,because he carefully plotted the sequence of events beforehand, took the slightly late Close into his stride ,murdered his wife and still made the tram in time to get his breath back.

[moste]

It’s clever stuff this colourization . Laurel and Hardy movies were treated to this advancement in technology. Alfred Hitchcock wasn’t a fan though.

[moste]

It really brings it home to you , seeing it in glorious technicolour, with splattering of blood up the wall, the object of the exercise was not to simply cause death with blows . It was to smash the poor souls head to pieces .

[WallaceWackedHer]

I don’t see why it’s necessary to get so agitated over a difference of opinion. I hope we don’t get this thread closed down like the other one .I enjoy studying all the possibilities.
Close ,I would wager was gone by 6.35pm. Julia was dead by 6 37.Wallace ,because he carefully plotted the sequence of events beforehand, took the slightly late Close into his stride ,murdered his wife and still made the tram in time to get his breath back.

Because it's not a matter of opinion it's a matter of fact. 6.30 isn't an opinion it's a disproven fact. Misinformation being propogated is harmful to the case. If new people get into this case and begin investigating it yet see 6.30 (for example) and think that's correct, it might influence their opinion. It COULD be 6.30 as much as it COULD be 6.45.

But in either case it would be a matter that literally every witness is wrong... Except Alan who is an actual witness who said 6.45, whereas nobody said 6.30 except the police reconstruction so not an actual witness. And we can also prove that the speed they have him moving at is rather fast. Anyone hop on a treadmill, set it to 4.2 mph and walk 500 yards at that speed, if you slow down at all you won't make it. See if you think this is a reasonable time, and carry with you something weighing... Oh I don't know, a few kg? This would be if ALL of his stops totalled to just 1 minute.

The fact is - the police DID NOT like 6.45, because they had it in their mind that William killed Julia then staged a crime scene and left for the tram. In actual fact this is an obvious false assumption: to say the crime scene staging took place AFTER Julia's death is pure assumption. To say he "had a bath" or whatever is another false assumption. Originally this was their angle remember...

Alan Close told Metcalfe that when he went to the police and told them 6.45, they did not accept his time. We know of course that they were PROBABLY right not to, but that's pure chance. At the time they had NO REASON to doubt his time, so to automatically tell him he's clearly wrong and he must mean 6.35 shows exactly how the police were operating in this case. Same when you have testimony of policemen jumping onto moving trams or sprinting to get to trams just before they depart. You can see exactly what type of investigation this was... And there have been MANY like it in the past... Overenthusiastic coppers who are SO SURE they have their man (and sometimes they do), that they make sure the pieces fit how they want them to.

In totality we have to go with a time of about 6.35 to 6.40. I mean it's something in that sort of region. In case where some people believe a matter of minutes makes the difference, then getting those minutes accurate is important.

IMO those minutes are irrelevant, but maybe not to others, so we can't start spreading myths. This is something I had a GREAT difficulty with when writing my article on the murder itself, because you can pick up 5 different books and they all say different things, and that's BS. It shouldn't be like that.

[WallaceWackedHer]

By the way I think the SAME reason is why they didn't check the tram for the chess night. I DON'T believe this was an "oversight", I think they purposefully did not check it because if it turned out he took the tram he said he did their entire case against him would fall apart.

This is a very, very flimsy case and so to jeopardize it like that would have left them with no leads. All because they made ANOTHER false assumption: That the caller MUST be the very same person who killed Julia. This is CLEARLY false logic and another reason why the investigation was such a failure.

Add onto it of course, the utter disaster of a forensic investigation.

You guys want forensics? Show me where I can hire a forensic detective, I'll send them all the crime scene photos, all of McFall's reports, Julia's real age, stomach contents, etc. and I promise we will get a MUCH better idea of what really took place. I have looked but can only find "digital forensics" (people who hack into computers and stuff to find deleted images yadda yadda).

All the evidence is purely circumstantial and there is only ONE piece of actual evidence against the man. That being his jacket under his wife's body. Apart from that there is nothing but bizarre behaviours, circumstance, and falsehoods purported as fact. I actually think it's summarized very well in the appeal application:

https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/case-files/william-herbert-wallaces-application-for-appeal/

I'm sure it was written with Roland Oliver's help obviously, but a lot of it is valid. And a lot of unfair assumptions are made by people today who review the case too... For example that ONLY William would turn out the lights. This is not a fact at all, like implying it would not benefit anyone but him that the crime should not be immediately discovered? Implying it is not possible anybody may not immediately leave the scene should they be fearful of evidence of their crime (we may for example have reason to believe an iron bar was removed)?

If William even turned on the lights, you realize the time would be before 6.50, and there are delivery boys on the streets, but no reports from anyone of a light visible from the front window? We must remember that in 1931 they did not have thick glazed windows and had thick curtains that would prevent light from escaping, so it could well be that even if the lights were on, nobody would be able to see this from outside... The Johnstons saw the light go up in the middle bedroom, but we have no photos of the middle bedroom. In the parlour there appears to be a curtain and another fabric behind it.

To prove William committed this crime, anyone interested in doing so should focus their attention on finding out if he took a briefcase out on his trip with him and IF HE HAD IT ON HIM WHEN HE GOT BACK (this could essentially prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt). Considering he was going on a business trip, and we know he had papers, the information regarding this should be out there somewhere.

Did you know they use this case in law schools as a prime example of a miscarriage of justice? Did you know that?