Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amy Wallace, was she involved?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Btw if any colours are wrong in the photo let me know and I'll have them corrected. I'll do the other crime scene photos next, the lady is very good.

    Anyway I think the jacket is still important to discuss. Now follow me with this okay... I'm thinking the killer has neither worn it nor used it as a shield. Let's assume William is the guilty party...

    Then I can see this, and it's mostly Mike's events:

    William is in the parlour checking himself in the mirror, he says to Julia there's a change in plan, Qualtrough is coming here and he's going to go out to meet him at the tram stop or whatever.

    So she brings in his jacket so he can put it on in order to go out and meet this chap... The fire has already been set for his visit, this was done earlier hence the time for it to warm up enough to cause burns.

    So as she comes in he hits her. She falls into the fireplace WITH the jacket.

    William doesn't give a toss about the jacket. He just pulls the thing and Julia out and puts the flames out.

    Now he just strips off, disposes of his clothing in the kitchen fireplace, changes into a new outfit, and leaves.

    I think that makes more sense... I think only a fool would rely on a jacket completely saving him from even microscopic blood particles, and beyond that only a fool would think to use his own. This way it is quite accidental you see... It hasn't been used at all.

    I prefer that for many reasons.

    However the indications are still relatively strong it was not his own hand that killed his wife. For one thing in the event he's guilty there are several witnesses testifying there's an accomplice as well as the telephone voice which was said to not be his own. That's of course just the bare bones.

    But in a guilt scenario I like that...

    Comment


    • I also don't think this man - if guilty - gives a toss about the time aspect. If he did he would mention Alan as the last person he can think of to see Julia alive. I think if this man is guilty his "alibi" is the phone call. He simply believes that as long as he goes on this trip and comes home he won't be suspected at all because it's "not his voice" (particularly if another party such as Gordon has placed this call) and it looks like he's tricked.

      The plan goes as far as that. No more complex.

      OR the "time alibi" is because he has another man going to kill Julia. This fits with "her mackintosh...and my mackintosh" which IMO is Gannon's strongest point alongside the R J Qualtrough client name connection.

      So he has to stay out so the job can be done.

      Both of these scenarios are more plausible in my view in a scenario of guilt. Raincoat shields and "impossible timings" don't cut it half as well.

      Anyway I'm just bored at the gym posting random stuff. If anyone can find me a forensic scientist I can hire let me know.

      Comment


      • Quote : So as she comes in he hits her. She falls into the fireplace WITH the jacket.

        William doesn't give a toss about the jacket. He just pulls the thing and Julia out and puts the flames out.
        Quote. :
        Now he just strips off, disposes of his clothing in the kitchen fireplace, changes into a new outfit, and leaves.


        So when he hits her , and she falls into the fire , she’s just unconscious is she? So the actual blood bath is just after he stripped off I guess? But then he goes into the kitchen and puts his shirt, waistcoat, and trousers onto the blazing fire? Does he spend the time to watch the clothing burn to ashes? Or just leave them burning when he leaves? The cops would be all over this like a bad rash!
        I’m afraid I can’t share your enthusiasm for this hypothesis.Sorry dude.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by moste View Post
          Quote : So as she comes in he hits her. She falls into the fireplace WITH the jacket.

          William doesn't give a toss about the jacket. He just pulls the thing and Julia out and puts the flames out.
          Quote. :
          Now he just strips off, disposes of his clothing in the kitchen fireplace, changes into a new outfit, and leaves.


          So when he hits her , and she falls into the fire , she’s just unconscious is she? So the actual blood bath is just after he stripped off I guess? But then he goes into the kitchen and puts his shirt, waistcoat, and trousers onto the blazing fire? Does he spend the time to watch the clothing burn to ashes? Or just leave them burning when he leaves? The cops would be all over this like a bad rash!
          I’m afraid I can’t share your enthusiasm for this hypothesis.Sorry dude.
          Yes she's unconscious, whatever blow sprayed that blood over the wall didn't just render her unconscious it killed her.

          He doesn't watch it burn. It would be miraculous, divine intervention almost, for a fireplace at full blaze to not incinerate clothing put in it. I have a real fireplace myself.

          The bloodbath is in his first outfit. This is disposed of.

          Comment


          • Lizzie Borden and Leopold and Loeb also did not stand and watch the items burn AFAIK. Many examples. I prefer it.

            Comment


            • Ask yourself this moste: You just killed someone, even the most MINISCULE microscopic (naked to the human eye) fleck of human blood upon your clothing could prove your guilt.

              Do you a) Go out in the same outfit and hope your shield did a good enough job to avoid even a MICROSCOPIC speck getting on you.

              Or do you b) Get rid of everything you were wearing?

              Considering his lack of mentioning Alan I don't even think he's relying on Alan for an alibi. His entire idea would be that the call came from someone else. So the only speed needed is to get to Menlove Gardens around the appointment time ideally.

              Comment


              • I'd also still really appreciate a complete tearing apart of my presented solution if anyone would like to do that. It will be proudly displayed on my website.

                I think comments section would work better but I'll post it article form too. Comments are often better as it allows for discussion.

                I am in contact with a woman who knows the son of one of the housebreakers and am trying to get info out of her.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  This is the point that I don’t think authors on the case have have considered Caz (I can’t recall if Antony mentions it though) A journey of a 500 yard walk, 3 trams and then a walk of unknown length and Wallace allows himself 45 minutes! The more we think about it the more unlikely this becomes for any average person let alone the normally meticulous, weil-prepared William. If he’d have missed just one tram he could have left himself as little as two minutes. To find an address that, for all that he‘d allegedly known, might have been a 20 minute walk away.

                  Ive also previously questioned his Monday night journey. Would the meticulous, well-prepared Wallace really have left it so late as to have arrived at the club on the stroke of the match deadline, 7.45? On this occasion though Antony suggested that some engineering repair work that was going on might have affected the trams.
                  Hi Herlock,

                  If that was the case, Wallace would have been even more strongly advised to check during the day on Tuesday whether the engineering repair work had finished or could affect his journey to MGE that evening. And of course, if he had checked out this aspect, it would be even odder that he didn't consult a map while he was at it!

                  The point that needs emphasising here is that anyone Wallace asked en route, who knew of a Menlove Gardens West, would naturally have advised him how to get there. So far so good, as long as he had left himself sufficient time to get to MGW. But what then? He'd have no idea how quick or easy it was going to be to get to MGE from MGW. One might reasonably assume they were very close, and yet nobody on his way to MGW could have reassured him on that point because there was no such street! That should have been a cause for concern. Anyone knowing precisely where MGW was and how to get there should have been able to direct Wallace to MGE with equal confidence. How could they be more or less next to each other if that wasn't the case?

                  I lived in East Way, Shirley, from 1996 to 2011, and here is a map to show where it is in relation to West Way, West Way Gardens, and all the other surrounding 'Ways':

                  https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3721682,-0.0472455,16z

                  On foot, coming from a bus stop on the main road and seeing West Way Gardens, it's not all that straightforward to find East Way without a map, and could take up to twenty minutes if you walked the length of West Way first, expecting a turning into East Way. You wouldn't find one, because it's off Bennetts Way at one end and Shirley Way at the other. You really would need a tongue in your head if you didn't have a map and were a 'complete stranger' to that part of East Croydon.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X


                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Caz he asked for directions to MGE not MGW. If the street had existed I'm sure the conductors would have been able to help him more than they did.

                    He knew it was somewhere off Menlove Avenue thanks to chess buddies and knew how to get there. He knew it would be one of the stops along there he needed.

                    Sometimes it's helpful to assume an answer and then ask why or how it happened. E.g. with the jacket I try often to think Okay Wallace DEFINITELY did it, how did this happen? But admittedly it's one thing I CANNOT crack no matter how hard I try. Guilty or innocent, I can't make it work really... I think my recent suggestion works maybe?

                    https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...rbert-wallace/

                    Read this and just assume he's innocent and see if you can make sense of it. It's from Antony's book.
                    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-26-2020, 11:25 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                      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".

                      This is another obfuscation attempt. That Close was carrying some massive weight that meant he couldn’t walk at a brisk pace. Where do do you keep getting these assumptions from? Elsie Wright also worked for Mr Close and at that particular time had more stops to deliver to than Alan and so was likely to have been carrying more weight than him. Yet you keep trying to make it appear that Close must have been crawling along like a Worlds Strongest Man contestant.

                      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.

                      Weird isn’t it? Someone suggesting that a person who was late might have walked faster than normal. Completely unheard of. Or that a kid might have preferred being out with his mates rather than delivering milk. My apologies for these outlandish suggestions!

                      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.

                      No. It’s called a possibility to consider. One that you refuse to accept. Why? Maybe because of your set-in-stone belief?

                      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:

                      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.

                      Point proven. The Holme’s only heard but Florence Johnston saw Close .... at around 6.30!!! Which is not 6.45!!! Why is this such a problem for you.

                      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.

                      Nope. They also said 6 minutes. I’ve also accepted that there could be natural variables in walking speed so perhaps it might have been 7 or even 8 minutes. But 6.45. Not a chance.

                      .

                      What we were being asked to believe by the Defence and what others have very conveniently and constantly tried to promote since was the Alan Close was at number 29 at 6.45. This required 2 pieces of dishonesty. It meant accepting the implication that the police manipulated Alan route time from 5 minutes to 20 minutes. (And let’s face it, even if they had promoted a 10 minute walk time it would still have allowed 15 mins for Wallace so would it really have been worth the risk of the time being thrown into doubt by someone else walking the route just to gain 5 minutes?) The second piece of dishonesty is obvious. 6.45 flies in the face of Close and the police plus Mrs Johnston plus the Holme’s plus Wildman

                      And this final piece is the crux of the whole issue. Close/police plus Johnston, the Holme’s and Wildman. All who were actually there in Wolverton Street. All who say nowhere near 6.45. And yet we’ve got over these an attempt to place more weight on three kids and what they thought that they’d heard Close say than the actual, real, on-the-spot witnesses. But this is normal for the Wallace case. Anything is fair game in defence of Wallace.

                      I won’t accept it.




                      Regards

                      Herlock




                      “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                      “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                      “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                      “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                      “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


                        What we were being asked to believe by the Defence and what others have very conveniently and constantly tried to promote since was the Alan Close was at number 29 at 6.45. This required 2 pieces of dishonesty. It meant accepting the implication that the police manipulated Alan route time from 5 minutes to 20 minutes. (And let’s face it, even if they had promoted a 10 minute walk time it would still have allowed 15 mins for Wallace so would it really have been worth the risk of the time being thrown into doubt by someone else walking the route just to gain 5 minutes?) The second piece of dishonesty is obvious. 6.45 flies in the face of Close and the police plus Mrs Johnston plus the Holme’s plus Wildman

                        And this final piece is the crux of the whole issue. Close/police plus Johnston, the Holme’s and Wildman. All who were actually there in Wolverton Street. All who say nowhere near 6.45. And yet we’ve got over these an attempt to place more weight on three kids and what they thought that they’d heard Close say than the actual, real, on-the-spot witnesses. But this is normal for the Wallace case. Anything is fair game in defence of Wallace.

                        I won’t accept it.



                        Are you really this petty to argue still instead of admitting you were wrong?

                        You know full well I've never said 6.45. 6.45 is bias and unreasonable and I don't partake in that hence why I give the actual accurate time of around 6.38. But you're now making out I said 6.45 so you can avoid just saying "oh right, I see I was wrong".
                        Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-26-2020, 11:54 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                          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.

                          The evidence that Parry played no part that night is overwhelming apart from to the wilfully blind.

                          Ive always said that the first blow would have been without a shield. I’ve also always said that Wallace would have accepted the possibility that he might have gotten blood on him to some extent.

                          You keep assuming second sight. You appear to know exactly how and where someone would fall. Even without knowing what exact position they or their assailant was in. It’s an amazing talent you have. Relentless supposition and assumption being paraded as very convenient fact.

                          And please check the dictionary for the definition of proven. This is ego of Rod-proportion.


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

                          You haven’t proven me wrong once. Ever. But I’ve used logic and reason to expose fallacies. What you’ve done and keep doing over and over again is manipulate, obfuscate and rely on contortions of reason simply to try and exonerate William. A man who is almost certainly guilty.

                          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.

                          More nonsense. Was he late WWH (yes you keep focusing on the ‘going out with friends’ part it you conveniently, surprise, surprise, ignore the absolutely proven fact that he was LATE. And LATE people have a tendency to speed up. To catch up. Because they are LATE. Why is it that you won’t accept this very obvious possibility I wonder.

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

                          Of course you have. Why don’t you give him a limp whilst he’s carrying a quarter of a ton of crates?

                          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.

                          No I’m not. I’m getting tired of debating with someone with your attitude issues that keep surfacing. This “I’ve already given you the benefit of my infallible logic” viewpoint is not constructive in any way.

                          Of course they were going to try and connect the coat to William. Of course William was going to be the focus. But you keep using this ‘second sight’ argument. You know exactly what people were thinking. You don’t. Wallace would have weighed things up. Positives and negatives. How could he have got Julia’s coat into the Parlour without raising suspicion or her noticing. Your trying to manage every single detail and we can’t. The other suggestions aren’t feasible. My suggestion is. William agreed.


                          You’re wearing the ‘William is innocent’ goggles constantly. Try the other pair and see the truth.
                          Regards

                          Herlock




                          “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                          “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                          “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                          “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                          “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                            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.

                            The only time that should be eliminated is 6.45. This is the lie.

                            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.

                            Three kids said that Close said 6.45. Close said that he said between 6.30 and 6.45. So to say that Close saying 6.45 is a fact simply and very obviously isn’t true.

                            You are quibbling over a minute or two. I’ve accepted variation. One of the timings was 6 minutes. Maybe it was 7? It wasn’t 20 though. 6.45 is out. The idea that someone couldn’t have average 4mph over such a short distance is risible.


                            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.

                            This is what Metcalfe said 50 years later after Close was long dead and unable to respond. You assume he was being truthful because it suits. Like the laughable Parkes.

                            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.

                            We should say 6.32-6.38.
                            Either way, Wallace had ample time.


                            Regards

                            Herlock




                            “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                            “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                            “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                            “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                            “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                              Ask yourself this moste: You just killed someone, even the most MINISCULE microscopic (naked to the human eye) fleck of human blood upon your clothing could prove your guilt.

                              Do you a) Go out in the same outfit and hope your shield did a good enough job to avoid even a MICROSCOPIC speck getting on you.

                              Or do you b) Get rid of everything you were wearing?

                              Considering his lack of mentioning Alan I don't even think he's relying on Alan for an alibi. His entire idea would be that the call came from someone else. So the only speed needed is to get to Menlove Gardens around the appointment time ideally.
                              As would a button in the ashes. Burning can take ages. Fires can burn out leaving Wallace arriving back with a kitchen fire with a half burnt pair of trousers. Not a single solitary chance. If he had massive time yes. Under time pressure no.

                              Wallace used the mackintosh. It’s the only explanation. Wallace was guilty. I’m bored with excuses and misdirection. I’m tired of manipulations. We’ve got to the stage where we immediately assume dishonesty in the police but simply ignore it when we have Roland Oliver in black and white lying to Judges. But hey, it doesn’t matter as long as we can exonerate Wallace. I’ve lost interest in bashing my head against a brick wall of twisted logic and bias. Im absolutely despondent about this thread. I’ve no more interest in talking about Teflon William Wallace.
                              Regards

                              Herlock




                              “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                              “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                              “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                              “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                              “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                You’re wearing the ‘William is innocent’ goggles constantly. Try the other pair and see the truth.
                                It's "possible" he was rushing I'm not stupid, but to just say he's probably rushing and there's nothing wrong with the police reconstruction - I mean do you not see the absolute hypocrisy going on? Everything you are attempting to accuse me of is what you are doing yourself lol. Saying he was rushing is an "assumption because it suits"... I haven't given him a limp, I'm giving him an average walking speed, combined with all testimony relating to Alan - which tells us that the time was not 6.30 but something more along the lines of 6.35. And yes I am quibbling over a minute or two because apparently for some people these minutes matter - and also it triggers a nerve in me personally when I know a fact being stated is wrong...

                                When I read a book and see either 6.30 or 6.45 I know for a fact right away that I am dealing with a person who is NOT impartial. Gannon says 6.45, because he's trying to prove William didn't have time to do it, and Murphy says 6.30 because of the opposite. I find it disgraceful of them.

                                RE: The events of Tuesday night. Whether Parry is involved or not on the Tuesday comes down mainly to belief or disbelief of Parkes. If I thought Parkes was completely lying (not even exaggerating but purely talking out of his ass) I would probably still go for something along the lines of Waterhouse, Gannon (his rent boy stuff does NOT automatically nullify the rest of his book - like P D James suggesting crossdressing does NOT nullify her idea), or a prank call and potentially unrelated slaying in a case of guilt.

                                Say you had a crystal ball and knew Wallace had NOTHING to do with this, just play the imagination game for a moment - who is in that box? Gordon is the most obvious answer I wager... And I will play it conversely for your benefit. If I KNEW Parry wasn't in the box or even with the person who was, then I think it's the Mr. X. I think there's enough to suggest William is not the caller to say that it is probable he is not. He might be, but the probability does not favour it, regardless of whether he is innocent or guilty.

                                ---

                                In regards to the other post:

                                You haven’t proven me wrong once. Ever.
                                This is actually untrue because I have proven 6.30 to be wrong and it took many, many pages for it to be accepted.

                                But you keep using this ‘second sight’ argument.
                                This is a particularly interesting extract because every single person arguing William's guilt uses this to the EXTREME. I often pad it a bit by saying "but we can't assume he would have the foresight to see ___" yadda yadda. But for those making a case against William, well every single thing he did is some carefully plotted chess master tier pre-emptive move to fool the police... Like they go REALLLLLLY overboard on the "he did X so the police would think Y" type thing.

                                However I think there are some things that can't be overlooked. As in I don't think ANYBODY in the situation could... One of those things is shoving your blood-soaked jacket you just wore to batter her under your wife's body and NOT thinking it will look suspicious. That is one of the things that would occur to anybody... And it's a bit of a silly notion to say Julia is going to "become suspicious" if he comes in with her coat lol... What's she going to say "why whatever are you doing with my coat William, you're not planning to murder me are you?"

                                I also don't think MANY reasonable people would go out in the same outfit they just wore to batter someone to death with and hope their shield prevented even the most microscopic trace of blood splatter. Some might, but I know I would DEFINITELY not feel safe having those garments analyzed by forensic professionals where even a dot invisible to the naked eye could show up.

                                Tell me - would YOU not notice that putting your jacket there after wearing it to protect yourself from blood spray will lead to obvious suspicion? Would YOU feel safe having your garments analyzed for microscopic specks of blood knowing you wore them to brutally slay your wife?

                                I also wonder why should I care if "William agrees" that it was used as a shield? He also "agrees" she might have worn it (in the other ghostwritten article). On top of that, if he's innocent how the hell would he know?

                                I don't buy the idea because I don't think it would get burned as easily... If we take your suggestion that she comes in HOLDING the jacket, then it makes more sense it would burn as it would go into the fire with her. He has also not been shielded from the first blow and apparently this is something important to him (that he avoids splatter). So what then? He pulls it out, stamps it out, and then uses the burnt jacket with burnt bits missing from it as a shield? I don't believe this is likely... I think the natural move for anybody would be to change clothes, even if they looked clean to the naked eye, at least I would replace them in the wardrobe and change outfits. This eliminates risk. I think this is natural.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X