Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[moste]

Oh yours is a closed stove. Ok! No a shirt would be gone in moments. In fact I have here in B C. A wood burning stove . and this would really be the incinerator to do the job. However we’re talking a lot of clothing on a coal fire . Not wise!

[WallaceWackedHer]

Oh yours is a closed stove. Ok! No a shirt would be gone in moments. In fact I have here in B C. A wood burning stove . and this would really be the incinerator to do the job. However we’re talking a lot of clothing on a coal fire . Not wise!

Mine uses coal or logs (or prebought kindling lol) and it would be only a shirt and pair of trousers. The Wallace's kitchen fireplace is a closed stove too, like it's a real fire but there's a door so just like mine I think.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Just to add I'm not positive what type of fire they had in the kitchen but I have a vague recollection Florence helped him put wood in it. So does that make it a wood burning stove? I'll double check whether she said this as my poor memory often leads to me making mistakes.

My friend Josh doesn't think he would change clothes if he felt he didn't havr to so I think it's not something everyone would do. However I'm PARANOID about forensics, especially watching detective shows, and personally I would absolutely change without question...

I think it would be easy to get dressed if you already had the clothes laid out in about a minute depending on the complexity of the outfit. If it's just a shirt, trousers, shoes and jacket, I think you could do that very fast.

Personally if I had to kill Julia, apart from doing a better job of staging, I think I would do it as such... I think I would put on a pair of trousers, socks, shirt, and gloves. I would use something like a hammer wrapped in a layer of sturdy cloth. I would also put on some type of mask while she's down at the fire like a balaclava to avoid hair and face splatter. Such is the extent of my paranoia.

After killing her I would strip on the spot, take all the clothing to a suitable fireplace that I already had started at a full blaze, and chuck everything in. Change into my new outfit and leave.

Due to intense forensic paranoia I might even wrap the weapon in ANOTHER cloth and remove it.

That is personally what I would do.

I would also not use a weird name or fake address. What I would do is probably set up a meeting at a real address somewhat near a friend's house. Knock on the client's door and realize I've been tricked, then go hang out with my pal (who I'd tell I'll come visit after my business appointment).

I think I would also exploit a genuine appointment if possible so it looks like sheer coincidence someone broke in while I was away.

That's how I would do it. I'd use the bloodied gloves to touch a bunch of things I'd later claim were stolen from like drawers etc.

I think I'd have got away with it.

[OneRound]

...

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

Hi WWH and all - just catching up on some recent posts. For my sins, I'm a law man and did know that as indeed I should.

It does seem at times there's a strong agreement going on here. I feel it's fair to say that the likes of Caz (great to see her back having perhaps taken a wrong turn off the A6 ) and Herlock (we need you and your clearly set out detailed reasoning to return asap please) only argue for Wallace's guilt on the balance of probabilities and not, as legally required in a criminal trial, as proved beyond reasonable doubt. Herlock has been at pains to state several times that he would not have delivered a guilty verdict whilst Caz recently referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal 'rightly' upholding Wallace's appeal.

As for me, I too couldn't convict Wallace but still certainly suspect him of planning his wife's murder albeit he may have somehow got someone else to do her in. As Caz and Herlock have well flagged, Wallace's actions in repeatedly asking for directions to Menlove Gardens East and his inactions in not being bothered to consult a map or others before setting off are so dodgy.

Best regards,
OneRound

[OneRound]

In that case, WWH, Wallace and his defence team must have missed a trick. The defence should have looked more closely at his claimed journey on chess night. If it could have been established that he didn't go near that phone box he'd have been off the hook if the police and prosecution continued to assume the caller MUST also have been the killer. So it looks like the defence could find no evidential support for Wallace's claimed movements around the time of the phone call, or he was the one who didn't press the matter for whatever reason. Either way, I agree that it's a crying shame if he was telling the truth.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz - there's possibly an analogy here with the claims of our old friend Jim Hanratty to have taken a bus from Liverpool to Rhyl which, if proven true, would have provided a solid alibi. Neither defence nor prosecution counsel were prepared to pursue this at trial and seek confirmation or contradiction from the bus driver / conductor.

Possibly the defence were fearful of a response along the lines of ''don't recall him at all'' whilst the prosecution were equally wary of an answer such as ''he could have been on it''. As pointed out by another on the A6 thread at the time, a trial is more about achieving a desired result than ascertaining the full truth.

Anyway, in both cases and in your words, a crying shame.

Best regards,
OneRound

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH and all - just catching up on some recent posts. For my sins, I'm a law man and did know that as indeed I should.

It does seem at times there's a strong agreement going on here. I feel it's fair to say that the likes of Caz (great to see her back having perhaps taken a wrong turn off the A6 ) and Herlock (we need you and your clearly set out detailed reasoning to return asap please) only argue for Wallace's guilt on the balance of probabilities and not, as legally required in a criminal trial, as proved beyond reasonable doubt. Herlock has been at pains to state several times that he would not have delivered a guilty verdict whilst Caz recently referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal 'rightly' upholding Wallace's appeal.

As for me, I too couldn't convict Wallace but still certainly suspect him of planning his wife's murder albeit he may have somehow got someone else to do her in. As Caz and Herlock have well flagged, Wallace's actions in repeatedly asking for directions to Menlove Gardens East and his inactions in not being bothered to consult a map or others before setting off are so dodgy.

Best regards,
OneRound

William looks as guilty as a man can possibly look, and it's mainly to be honest to do with the fact he plays chess, is rather emotionless, and the weird name/address and asking so many people on his journey. That is what makes him look so guilty, to look at the case anyone is going to assume "uhhh this isn't right, he killed her".

But I don't necessarily think that's the case.

And I do not think many of the reasonings are fair, nor do I think the plan as presented is plausible. He may well be guilty obviously, but I really do not like the reasoning used, which is often heavily biased and reminds me of Yseult Bridges posting his "evil jawline" (seriously, she said that) as evidence of his guilt.

As I see it, if anyone wants to prove his guilt I have one very easy way: Show he went out with a briefcase and never returned with one. I cannot believe this information is not out there. He took papers out with him for his appointment, where is the details about this sort of thing? That would prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt in my opinion.

The rest of the case I think is flimsy and relies on perceiving the man's actions as unusual. In other words if he came home to an alive and well Julia, there would be a completely different way to perceive these things.

What I think as I stated recently, is that if he is guilty his alibi is NOT leaving his house at an impossible time, but the phone call and assumption it will look like he's been tricked. I think I can prove this. And I think there's VERY strong evidence to suggest Parry's involvement in the crime in some capacity whether he wittingly knew what was going to happen or not. Even if the Radio City show never happened, and Parkes never gave his testimony, the case against him having SOME hand in this is very strong.

I would vastly prefer the solution given by Waterhouse (I again tried to purchase this book and again it is nowhere)... Well I think I suggested it before, but I think perhaps when William got to Breck Road Parry was waiting for him. He told Parry to go to the box and place the call. I think he fudged the details (I'm assuming Wallace is guilty here btw) IF Wallace indeed said "West" when Beattie said "East". And I think R J Qualtrough was the intended name, but as we know William has a TERRIBLE problem with names, dates, places, etc. and constantly mixes them up.

As stated I believe the wood fireplace stove thing in the kitchen would be a perfect means of disposal of bloodstained clothing. I think perhaps I am a little paranoid but I personally would not in a million years take the chance of a jacket protecting me and just wear the same exact thing and come home. Parry's clothes were apparently examined down to the SEAMS. This is VERY thorough. I'm frightened of forensics. I'd burn the lot.



Only a shirt made of titanium is surviving a 2 hour fire in a closed-door type fireplace like the one I have downstairs, it looks like this one here is even more "heavy duty" as it were, mine is the same just a little smaller.

It might just be me, but I imagine nobody would feel safer just going out in those clothes knowing they will be examined down beyond what can even be seen with the naked eye, than they would just incinerating the lot. I'd incinerate EVERYTHING. I'd be covered head to toe and it would all be going straight in there no doubt about that. I would not rely on a jacket for any form of protection. And if I did then THAT would be what would be going into that fire you see there if I'd worn it or whatever.

It was only identifiable as his own jacket because of how in tact it still was. Otherwise it could have been basically anyone's coat (if it was even identifiable as a coat at all!).

[WallaceWackedHer]

There are some things I think are completely unfair to say. You can present it as "maybes" but anything beyond I believe to be unreasonable.

I think it is unfair to say that he discovered her true age and bashed her. I think it's unfair to say they were unhappy because two people said they were indifferent towards each other and that must be more correct than every other witness. I think it's unfair to say only he would turn out the lights. I think it's unfair to say anyone glancing at the chess board would easily see he hadn't been in 4 weeks (or even that they'd check this, as opposed to just seeing his name and the date up top). I think it's unfair to say that if he didn't check a map it means he's guilty. I think it's unfair to say nobody would go upstairs first instead of into the parlour (despite the fact his wife was likely to be in bed sick if not downstairs).

These are all good "maybes" which can be presented, but nothing that really proves that he did it. They might have been unhappy but in my view evidence shows if he killed her the motive came shortly before the crime, due to corroborated diary entries about his concern for her welfare when she turned up home late. I think I would say that at THIS point he still cares about her. Something might have occurred after this.

Michael Peterson is accused of killing his wife and he seems strongly guilty. In fact he probably is. And again it's weird because everyone said they were happy... But as it turned out, he'd deleted something like 161 files off of his computer the day she died, and it came to light he had been using gay webcam sites to meet men as he was bisexual. And again to me this suggests that the motive presented itself as a recent event, like she had just found this out hence him trying to nuke all the files on his PC.

ALSO in the Peterson case they said a "blowpoke" was missing and that this was the murder weapon. It was not missing, they found it some time later.

There are SOME things however, which are strong in the case. Forensics MUST be updated, a modern day forensic scientist NEEDS to look at the crime scene, morgue photos, and McFall's notes, and give us a better picture. As said I will PAY FOR THIS with my own money if anyone can find such a person.

[OneRound]

...

He didn't care about the milk boy evidently, as I did say. If Alan Close had never given his testimony then William would have been executed. Hence this does not make sense. He would have been hanged if not for that testimony so clearly it was of utmost importance but he didn't mention it at all. He didn't say Alan came at 6.40, or anything, he didn't mention ANYONE, so without Alan coming forward there is zero time alibi.


...

Hi WWH and all - just latching onto the above extract and thinking outside the usual boxes. Apologies now if it's a complete time waster.

Anyway, whilst Close saw Julia, I don't believe he saw Wallace [shoot me down now if that's wrong]. Is it at all possible that Wallace had left before Close pitched up with the milk? That would certainly explain why Wallace didn't mention Close initially. If that was the case, it would mean Wallace didn't personally attack and kill his wife although he still could have planned it.

Pure speculation but could Wallace have subsequently lied about being in the house when Close arrived in order to try and manufacture an alibi (that he otherwise didn't have) for having insufficient time to kill Julia?

With thanks and best regards,
OneRound

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH and all - just latching onto the above extract and thinking outside the usual boxes. Apologies now if it's a complete time waster.

Anyway, whilst Close saw Julia, I don't believe he saw Wallace [shoot me down now if that's wrong]. Is it at all possible that Wallace had left before Close pitched up with the milk? That would certainly explain why Wallace didn't mention Close initially. If that was the case, it would mean Wallace didn't personally attack and kill his wife although he still could have planned it.

Pure speculation but could Wallace have subsequently lied about being in the house when Close arrived in order to try and manufacture an alibi (that he otherwise didn't have) for having insufficient time to kill Julia?

With thanks and best regards,
OneRound

Howdy again, I don't think these are possible.

First of all, Alan arrived at about 18.37. When Alan arrived Julia would be taking in the milk and doing what they do with it, if William had left now then she could not at the same time walk William down the back yard. So William's time estimate of when he left would have to be really far off (AKA he would have had to leave at something like 6.36).

In regards to the other suggestion I don't believe that is plausible either. Alan Close's testimony is basically the only reason Wallace was acquitted... Well not the only reason, but one of the strongest.

If Wallace told police "I left at 6.45" and then is asked "who was the last person but you to see her alive?" and he's like "she didn't see anyone else since I got home" then where is his time alibi? He has none. Now he has nearly an entire hour to murder her in the eyes of the law. It is only because of Alan that the timing seems tight at all.

Wallace did not appear to know about the milk boy's arrival when it came to light, he said he guesses that he was probably upstairs getting dressed at the time. If he's telling the truth this would make sense given the timings.

This is why I think if he is guilty he does not care whatsoever about the timing aspect because he neglected to mention the MOST vital aspect.

I think what would have happened is - I would favour Waterhouse. I think Wallace had Gordon place a call (possibly not even knowing what was going to happen) and THAT'S his alibi. The fact he didn't call and he knows he didn't call, and he's then framed the entire crime to make it look like Gordon did it... Then worst comes to worst he throws Gordon under the bus. If Gordon called he obviously knows that Gordon is GOING to incriminate himself because he will have no alibi. He can't have one if he's the caller.

That's what I like best. And I don't think the jacket was worn or held up as a shield. Seeing that kitchen fireplace is like a heavier duty version of my own, there is absolutely no chance any clothing would survive that fireplace. Like, it's impossible as far as I can tell. If anyone can throw a shirt and trousers into such a fire with a closing door, leave it on for 2 hours, come back, and the pieces still be recognizable, then please do so and show me the result. There is no chance.

[moste]

[QUOTE=OneRound;n732614]

Hi WWH and all - just latching onto the above extract and thinking outside the usual boxes. Apologies now if it's a complete time waster.

Anyway, whilst Close saw Julia, I don't believe he saw Wallace [shoot me down now if that's wrong]. Is it at all possible that Wallace had left before Close pitched up with the milk? That would certainly explain why Wallace didn't mention Close initially. If that was the case, it would mean Wallace didn't personally attack and kill his wife although he still could have planned it.

Pure speculation but could Wallace have subsequently lied about being in the house when Close arrived in order to try and manufacture an alibi (that he otherwise didn't have) for having insufficient time to kill Julia?

With thanks and best regards,
OneRound



Hi OneRound .]This is to my mind quite feasible.Its just another hypothetical possibility. Forget for example Julia walking Wallace out to the back lane. He had no witness for this happening, and may have been lying.
If your feeling is that Wallace was guilty, then absolutely everything he says may be a lie, unless he can back it up.

[WallaceWackedHer]

[QUOTE=moste;n732616]

Hi WWH and all - just latching onto the above extract and thinking outside the usual boxes. Apologies now if it's a complete time waster.

Anyway, whilst Close saw Julia, I don't believe he saw Wallace [shoot me down now if that's wrong]. Is it at all possible that Wallace had left before Close pitched up with the milk? That would certainly explain why Wallace didn't mention Close initially. If that was the case, it would mean Wallace didn't personally attack and kill his wife although he still could have planned it.

Pure speculation but could Wallace have subsequently lied about being in the house when Close arrived in order to try and manufacture an alibi (that he otherwise didn't have) for having insufficient time to kill Julia?

With thanks and best regards,
OneRound



Hi OneRound .]This is to my mind quite feasible.Its just another hypothetical possibility. Forget for example Julia walking Wallace out to the back lane. He had no witness for this happening, and may have been lying.
If your feeling is that Wallace was guilty, then absolutely everything he says may be a lie, unless he can back it up.

If he's guilty and lying then he had to leave after Alan saw Julia (which is the first scenario presented), and therefore it would not be possible that at the time Alan arrived Julia was walking William down the back yard. If he's the killer he cannot have left the house until after Alan last saw Julia (which was before the door shut on him at around 18:38).

In the latter scenario William had no time alibi apart from Alan so to omit him would not make sense IF his alibi was reliant on time (I think it probably isn't).

Well actually I admit I forgot about the accomplice idea when replying. It is possible he left before Alan's arrival as claimed if someone else murdered her on his command.

[moste]

On closer inspection WWH. If you zoom in on the ‘range’ the centre section is the actual fireplace ,to the right is a cubby for fuel, wood logs or coal scuttle , and to the left behind the big iron door is the..... wait for it ! ‘The Oven ‘ used for baking ( my grandma had one . )
Note also the iron canopy sloping outwards, above the open fire grate, this was a damper mechanism for adjusting chimney draught .
Hope this lays the fireplace thing to rest. All purely academic really because (a) the forensics of that period would be capable of determining clothing ash from wood or coal ash .Unless we introduce the concept that’ Wallace was aware of this and gave the ashes a damn good raking around to foil the Plod, and (b) The mackintosh was used as a shield I believe, then the body rolled on to it , to further confuse and confound . I tell yer, this murdering chess player , was a real old sage.

[OneRound]

[QUOTE=moste;n732616]

Hi WWH and all - just latching onto the above extract and thinking outside the usual boxes. Apologies now if it's a complete time waster.

Anyway, whilst Close saw Julia, I don't believe he saw Wallace [shoot me down now if that's wrong]. Is it at all possible that Wallace had left before Close pitched up with the milk? That would certainly explain why Wallace didn't mention Close initially. If that was the case, it would mean Wallace didn't personally attack and kill his wife although he still could have planned it.

Pure speculation but could Wallace have subsequently lied about being in the house when Close arrived in order to try and manufacture an alibi (that he otherwise didn't have) for having insufficient time to kill Julia?

With thanks and best regards,
OneRound



Hi OneRound .]This is to my mind quite feasible.Its just another hypothetical possibility. Forget for example Julia walking Wallace out to the back lane. He had no witness for this happening, and may have been lying.
If your feeling is that Wallace was guilty, then absolutely everything he says may be a lie, unless he can back it up.

Thanks, Moste.

Yep, I'm not going to die in a ditch arguing that this is what happened. However, I did wonder if it was a possibility and it doesn't seem to have been shot down.

As stated earlier, although Wallace's guilt isn't proved beyond reasonable doubt to my satisfaction, I remain highly suspicious of what he may have done or arranged. Consequently as per your final sentence, I don't necessarily believe what he said unless it can be backed up.

Best,
OneRound

[OneRound]

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, Caz and all - further to my earlier posts today, Herlock's first para above is bang on the money for me and a key reason as to why I'm so suspicious of Wallace.

From this distance, I'm less swayed by Wallace arriving at the chess club 'on the stroke of the match deadline'. Before forming much of an opinion on that, I would want to know what was usual practice at the club for him and others. Was he normally there in good time? Were other members usually punctual? Did games actually get forfeited because someone turned up a few minutes after 7.45? I'm normally pretty punctual myself and play sport once a week with others at what should be a fixed start time. However, I know that if I turn up at that time, I'll still be waiting at least 5 minutes for others to arrive and so have drifted into their bad habits. Perhaps that was the same for Wallace.

Best regards,
OneRound

[WallaceWackedHer]

On closer inspection WWH. If you zoom in on the ‘range’ the centre section is the actual fireplace ,to the right is a cubby for fuel, wood logs or coal scuttle , and to the left behind the big iron door is the..... wait for it ! ‘The Oven ‘ used for baking ( my grandma had one . )
Note also the iron canopy sloping outwards, above the open fire grate, this was a damper mechanism for adjusting chimney draught .
Hope this lays the fireplace thing to rest. All purely academic really because (a) the forensics of that period would be capable of determining clothing ash from wood or coal ash .Unless we introduce the concept that’ Wallace was aware of this and gave the ashes a damn good raking around to foil the Plod, and (b) The mackintosh was used as a shield I believe, then the body rolled on to it , to further confuse and confound . I tell yer, this murdering chess player , was a real old sage.

Okay yeah I literally never would have known that without being told.

And no I think it is important. You know more about the operation of these things than me. If a fire burned in there for 2 hours would clothing remain recognizable as clothing or is it going to be ash.